Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TREATIES OF PEACE (ITALY, ROUMANIA, BULGARIA, HUNGARY AND FINLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.6 a.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the House knows, Treaties of Peace with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland were signed on 10th February of this year and this is a consequential matter which, I hope, will be non-controversial. These Treaties do not come into force until ratifications are deposited on behalf of this country, the United States, the Soviet Union and France. It is, however, hoped that these ratifications may all be deposited within the next four weeks, or thereabouts. The Treaties, again as the House knows, are the outcome of difficult and complicated negotiations which have ranged over a period of almost 18 months. When the Treaties come into force they will represent the first step in the restoration of normal international relationship in Europe.
It is, therefore, important that when the ratifications have taken place His Majesty's Government should be in a position both to implement their obligations under the Treaties and also to avail themselves of the rights which these Treaties confer upon them. For the most

part, of course, the Treaties impose obligations on the ex-enemy countries concerned, but a certain number of obligations are also put upon the Allied States, including His Majesty's Government. So far as this country is concerned, legislation is required if these obligations are to be carried out. The Treaties, naturally, also confer a number of rights on the Allied Powers, including His Majesty's Government, and legislation is required in order that advantage may be taken of these rights.
While it is possible to indicate to the House in a general kind of way the type of subject in connection with which provision of a legislative character will be needed, it is impossible at present to decide in precise detail what provisions actually will be necessary. As I know hon. Members are aware, a similar situation arose after the 1914–1918 war, in connection with the implementation of the Treaty of Versailles and the other peace treaties of that time. Accordingly, the Bill follows the same precedent of the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish that there should be any misunderstanding. He says, "follows the same precedent of the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919." I think, with respect, that he means it follows the precedent of that Statute, and not follows a precedent which that Statute itself was following. I hope I have made myself plain. I think it is of some importance. I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman meant.

Mr. McNeil: With great respect, may I say that I took the trouble like the hon. Gentleman opposite, to re-read that most interesting Debate, and I rather think my language is accurate.

Mr. Pickthorn: I was not quite sure. I apologise.

Mr. McNeil: However, in these legal matters, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, I attempt to be accurate. During this Debate, I will take an opportunity of making sure that I am right in what I have said. I, therefore, repeat that the Bill follows the same precedent as the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919, but I will seek corroboration on that point. It takes the form of an enabling measure


conferring upon His Majesty, if I may quote from Clause 1, the right to
make such appointments, establish such offices, make such Orders in Council, and do such things as appear to Him to be necessary for carrying out the said Treaties, and for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof.
Here for the benefit of the House are examples of situations in connection with which action under the Bill may be necessary. In the first place, all the treaties in question confer the right on His Majesty's Government to take over enemy property situated in this country. Such property is of course at present vested with the custodian of enemy property but only awaiting the peace treaties. It still stands in the name of the various enemy owners. The extent to which His Majesty's Government should avail themselves of the right to take over this property might be varied from treaty to treaty, and is indeed still under consideration, but assuming that it is decided to exercise it either in whole or in part, legislative provision by Order in Council under this Bill would be necessary in order to enable this property to be finally taken over and disposed of. Correspondingly, the Treaties provide for the restoration of British property situated in the various enemy countries which have been taken over or otherwise placed under control by the Governments of those countries. It may be necessary to set up certain machinery in order to take full advantage of this right. This, however, is unlikely to require an Order in Council, but it may nevertheless require action of one of the other kinds contemplated in the first part of this Bill from which I have already quoted.
Here, on the other side, are some examples of action which may be required under the Bill in order to enable His Majesty's Government to fulfil their obligations under the Treaties. There are a number of provisions in the Treaties in connection with patents and with contracts and periods and limitations of rights of action which require this country to grant further time to private parties in enemy countries to resume or re-establish their contract and other rights in British territory, rights which in time of war may have lapsed or been suspended or of which it may have been impossible for the enemy national to avail himself.
It goes without saying, of course, that the Treaties make similar provision for the resumption of such rights in enemy territory on the part of British subjects or other allied nationals, and it is of course important that if we are to obtain these rights we should ourselves be in a position to make them available to the enemy nationals who are entitled to them under the treaties. These are matters for which legislation by Order in Council will probably be required. Apart from economic provisions of the types to which I have made reference, there is very little in the Treaties which directly involve this country from the point of view of Parliamentary legislation. Most of the obligations, as the House is aware, are imposed on the enemy countries, and they are mainly of a political or military character. Few obligations, however, of that character devolve upon the Allies, and such as they are, I am sure they do not require any legislation in order to implement them.
As I have said, I hope this Measure may prove to be non-controversial. I think that any controversy will probably be of a legal or constitutional kind. I hope I may be able to meet the points that are raised, but the Bill has one great advantage: It is, I think, in good English and quickly comprehensible to the House.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: This does not look like a very great occasion and perhaps, if there were any doubt about that, the fact that I am rising at this stage will remove all doubts. Yet in a sense this clearly is a very great occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Here we are taking the last Parliamentary step towards the ratification of no less than five Treaties, and the Minister of State properly said that he hoped that we were thereby beginning to get back towards a normal Europe. Therefore it is a very great occasion, and I think there are great speeches that could be made and great subjects that could be raised on this matter. But my particular task, I think I am right in judging, on this occasion is to talk rather about the machinery of the Bill than the substance of it, though I shall say a little about that. The right hon. Gentleman, whose candour and reasonableness are always a pleasure to his opponents in these discussions, paid me the compliment of saying I had looked up


the Debates of last time, but I am not quite sure that that was not excessive. The world we live in is now so occupied, that I looked at the volumes but can hardly be said to have read the Debates. If he read them properly, he has a great advantage over me, which I hope, he will not use excessively.
One impression I did get out of the earlier Debate was that on all the earlier occasions, every time the Minister responsible spoke, whether it was Mr. Arthur Balfour, or Mr. Lloyd George, or Mr. Ramsay Macdonald—who came in for the last post-war Treaty in 1924, with Turkey—they all said at least one, if not both, of the following two things to the House. They said that this was no place to discuss the whole of this vast document, Versailles or whichever it might be, and that the House of Commons would be a most unsuitable place for discussing the whole general policy of the Treaty or Treaties in question or for going into the mass of details. That was one thing that all Ministers after the last war said to us. The other thing that they said was that people really must not think criticism was effective when it merely pointed out some error or defect in one of the Treaties. It was said from the Treasury Bench on each occasion that we must remember that Treaties were not simply the results of the wisdom of the Treasury Bench but that other people had a part in it, and all that.
I would hike to make a comment on these two Governmental assumptions which were then made, and I am sure there is no party point in this, for they would probably be made now by whoever was on the Treasury Bench of any party. The first comment I wish to make is that if criticism is not effective merely by showing that there is some error or defect, then there really is a duty laid on the Ministers responsible for the Treaties, to explain how the error or defect came to be there. It is not enough for them simply to tell us to assume that everything that is right in the Treaties came because our representative wanted it put there and that everything that is wrong was because of the wickedness of the foreigners who are we all know generally awkward chaps. They ought really to explain to us some of these points upon which we may be doubtful. When these doctrines were first enunciated from the Treasury Bench, it was the first time we had congratulated ourselves on getting away from what is rather absurdly

called "power politics." Recently, there has been a second such period; I rather think we are getting away from that now. We did it for a year or so after the last war, but it has rather gone out of fashion now. If it is not to be said of anything that anybody questions or criticises in any one of these Treaties that this is simply the results of the actual strategic forces present, then there is a duty upon Ministers to say what else it was that caused these results.
If one were to make general criticism of these Treaties, I think the first question that would have to be asked is in what sense four, at least, out of these five States can reasonably be treated as independent States which will have a real entity of their own in the immediate future; because we were told that these treaties are to be ratified, it is hoped, within four weeks. So it is a very immediate effect that we are dealing with, and I think really we ought to have—I think the country deserves—some kind of reassurance about the reality of these entities. Roumania, and so on, the names we are all acquainted with and can find on the map, though the frontiers have moved a little one way or the other; but what the hope of reality of these entities is, does now really want a certain amount of explaining.
The second general question which I should like to ask about is the principle upon which reparations have been fixed. If the Minister tells us there is no principle, and could be none in the matter, that the whole thing had simply to be the effect of hard bargaining, I do not say for a moment that he is necessarily wrong; but if there is any principle to be found, I think it should be indicated. And I mean from both ends—both the principle upon which it was agreed that x million dollars, or whatever it may be, was the maximum from a particular country; and also the principle, if there was a principle, upon which it was arranged what proportion of those x millions should go to the various Allied and Associated Powers. I am not trying to make party controversy out of this. If the fact is that there is no principle, that we simply had to deal with practical, almost material, pull and push, then I daresay that is quite right, that such procedure was unavoidable; but I think we ought to be told about that.
Then, I think, also we ought to be told a little—because presumably the delegated


legislation which we are now asked to authorise may be concerned with this—about what is to be done with regard to the assets in Roumania, the restoration of British and American property there, and especially the payment for such parts of it as may have gone to Russia as reparations. Again I do not say that it is wrong that such assets should be used in such a way; and even if it was wrong, I do not say the blame was on His Majesty's Government; but now we ought to have some guess whether that is all a matter really at large for negotiation and arbitration; and again, why there is the difference which the Minister of State mentioned between the provisions for payments from Roumania and from the other four. I think I am right in saying that in all the other cases payment is to be in the currency of the defeated country. I hope I have that right, but the Minister of State will remember that Article 33 of the Roumanian Treaty makes other, different, provisions, into which I do not want to go in detail now, but I think we should perhaps have some explanation about that.
Then, while we are in Roumania, I think also we should have some explanation about the question of Russian troops there. As far as I understand it, the treaty authorises an unspecified number of troops in Roumania, to cover Russia's lines of communications, for an unspecified period and, if I am right about that, then I think the House ought to have some indication when and how it is hoped to specify limits, both to the numbers of troops and to the length of time, because if these states are to have some reality, if we are to get back to a normal Europe, then clearly there ought to be a terminus ad quem for such things. We shall not get far back towards a normal Europe, so long as there are countries here and there which have to have in them unspecified numbers of the troops of other sovereign States, and for an unspecified period of time.
Then about Bulgaria. I think we may reasonably ask for more specific information about the suggested demilitarisation on the Bulgarian side of the frontier, and on the relation between, that and the U.N.O. Commission which is now in those parts. I quite understand, Mr. Speaker, that we have, very shortly, discussed this subject on other occasions, and no doubt

we shall have to discuss it again, but it is, I think, strictly relevant upon this Treaty, and I do not think the House ought to part with the Second Reading of this Bill without asking a question about that.
My last substantive question is about the exchanges of nationals and how much—by parting with this Bill and thereby, so much as in us lies, expediting the ratification of the Treaties—how much shall we thereby advantage or disadvantage persons who may now find themselves on foreign soil who may be unwilling to go back to what, prima facie, appears to be their own country—Yugoslays in Italy, for instance, the ones I am most particularly concerned with personally. It is not easy to foresee from the Treaties how much His Majesty's Government will be more bound after we have let this go than before, and I think we ought to know about that. I am quite sure that in the interests of our country it is of immense importance that we should be plainly seen to have done everything we possibly can for men who have been our friends, and are now in the most distressing of all political situations, exiles, cut off from their families, and not daring, rightly or wrongly, not daring to return to their own country. I am sure it is immensely in the interests of our country that we should be plainly seen to have done everything we can for these men, and I think that the House deserves two or three minutes of explanation about any effect which these Treaties may be going to have upon that problem.
Now I come to the adjective parts of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman very kindly and, if I may say so, very competently, did try to indicate to us for what parts of the Treaties it is thought His Majesty's Government needs more authority than it already draws from the prerogative. That is a fair way of putting the short point, I think. I do not think if is as clear now as it might be, so could the right hon. Gentleman have another shot at telling us which part of the Treaties it is where these Orders in Council, and so on, will be needed? He thought that there were precedents before 1919, and I would not pretend to have made any investigation into this matter. I daresay he is quite right, but my impression has been that the exact way it was done in 1919 was then new We are all aware in a general way that the treaty-making


power is a part of the prerogative, and I am sure that nobody on these Benches would in the least wish to reduce that. I. is all the more necessary not to take power to do by legislation, direct or delegated, anything that can be done by the prerogative. That is the first step, I think, upon which we ought to be reassured: that it should be made clear that legislative authority will not be used by Order in Council or otherwise to do what might have been done by the prerogative or, if that is not quite clear, then the reasons why it is thought proper to act in the other way should be made quite plain.
My second point, a minor thing, since the right hon. Gentleman boasted about the lucidity and elegance of his English, which I also admire very much, is that it. seems to me there is one small error in the leaving out of a comma. The preamble appears to show that 1947 Treaties of Peace have been signed; there have been several, but not so many as that, and I think really it wants a comma after "nineteen hundred and forty-seven." However, that is a very minor matter which I would not have mentioned if the right hon. Gentleman had not himself drawn attention to the excellence of this prose.
Now I want to come to the form in which legislative authority is to be used, if it is necessary, and where the desired act can be shown not to have been possible under the prerogative. The second "whereas" says:
it is expedient that His Majesty should have power to do all such things as may be proper and expedient for giving effect to the said Treaties.
That may seem a mere truism or statement of the obvious, but I think it is not quite so plain as that; I think it is not quite plain that it is expedient that it is His Majesty who should do these things and not His Majesty's Ministers. I do not for a moment suggest that whatever is done under this will not be done on the advice of the responsible Minister. Of course I quite understand that, but, as I understand it, and with respect to any lawyers present, the effect of this is that any appointment, office, Order in Council or other thing which may be done by the Government upon the ground that it is necessary for carrying out these treaties, will escape all possible challenge in any British court. I think that may be necessary, and I admit that it was

done on the last occasion, but I think it needs defending and explaining. I think I am right here legally. If for His Majesty were substituted His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, or possibly a longer list of Ministers—then I think there would still be not any very easy, or loose right of challenge; but it would be possible to challenge something on the ground that it was ultra vires, pretending to be in pursuance of the Treaty whereas in fact it had nothing to do with the Treaty. As it stands, I think I am right in saying—and the leading case is ex parte Bayer Products 1941—I think that with the formula here used all appeal to the courts is cut out. It may be that that is quite necessary, but I do not think we have yet had sufficient argument to make us see that clearly, and I think that ought to be made clear.
Similarly, this is a minor point, but I think it is worth making also, Subsection (3) provides for the negative check on the Orders in Council under this Bill. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully with his advisers whether that is right. That was done in the last batch of treaties, I fully concede that, but I do not see plainly that it is right. Obviously from the Treasury Bench point of view the natural thing is to take the wider of the two powers, and leave the House with the negative check, and not the positive check. Again, it is natural to say that foreign affairs are more important and intricate, and that here we have home affairs all muddled up with treaties, and that the Executive should have the widest discretion, and that it is pedantry and pernicketiness for the Opposition to challenge that. I can see the force of that, or at least I can see the attraction of that argument, but I do not think it really has very much force. It is equally easy to argue the other way round, I think: that is to say, it is surely of great importance that these Orders in Council, once they are issued, should be there, should have the permanence of Statutes, and be clearly there, and known to be there, because of the relations with foreign Powers and so on, and international law that it is all the more desirable that that should be so. Rut then the negative check nets whittled down to nothing at all, by the presumption that once action has been taken by Order on matters of such moment, it is


effectively impossible for the House to petition His Majesty, to pray against it. I should like to ask for careful consideration whether this is the right way to do it, and whether the Foreign Office would not in the long run be in a stronger position with the positive procedure; because I take it that any Orders in Council urgently needed must be already in draft. The experts cannot be far off knowing the scope of their first batch, and the second, third and fourth will not be of such very great urgency, and not very numerous; therefore the practical disadvantage of trying to get 'a code out under positive consent of the House—I hope the practical administrative difficulties of that are not insuperable, and that the arguments for the positive procedure I have tried to indicate should be considered to have some weight in that connection.

11.34 a.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Minister said that this Bill would prove non-controversial and was of a legal and constitutional kind. That is typical of how out-of-date the British Foreign Office is at present. There is far more involved in this Bill, and what lies behind it, than has been touched upon by the Minister. For the second time in my relatively young life we have now passed through two world wars, and we appear to be driftng into a situation which may produce another. I cannot allow this Bill to have a Second Reading today without making a protest about what lies behind. First, may I direct the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill covers Treaties of Peace for several countries including Italy, and on page 2 we read:
The expenses of any Minister incurred in carrying out the said Treaties shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
I understand that before Parliament agrees to vote any finance it has a right to reflect the grievances of the people, and I want today to reflect the grievances of the ordinary people of this country. Let me make it clear that in individual relationships I believe in the maximum magnanimity towards one another, provided the people are playing the game with one another. I believe people should treat one another as generously as they possibly can. but we seem to have forgotten what has been involved in the recent war, and all the controversy

that took place prior to it and that brought it about. The people of this country cannot easily forget what the Italians were responsible for. Never let it be forgotten that Fascist Italy entered the war when our country, whose people made such great sacrifices, was in a very difficult position.
How dare we forget what took place? How dare we say that a Bill of this character, which is equivalent to endorsing the Treaty with Italy, is non-controversial, when we remember how the Italians came and bombed London in the very difficult times through which we were going? Do we not remember how many lives were lost and how many houses were damaged in London, and how the Italians bombed and fired on our Maltese fellow-countrymen for months and years? They damaged their houses, docks and ships. Young friends of mine serving in the British Navy can never forget what took place and the many lives which were lost in Malta. Before we can agree to part with this Bill, the whole question arises of our Treaty with Italy, the question of reparations and the damage they did in this country, and what contribution they are to make towards dealing with it. We are calling upon the Germans to make their contribution. If it is right to call on the Germans, it is equally right to call on the Italians and Japanese.
Have we forgotten the terrible situation into which our country was put during the difficult periods of the wars of intervention in Ethiopia and Spain? Have we forgotten how Italian submarines torpedoed our merchant ships in the Mediterranean, prior to the war, and how they caused our men and boys to fight for their lives on the open sea, or how our boys flew night after night over the Alps, and how many lives were lost when our gallant Air Force was operating over there? Not a word is said about the number of British lives lost at the hands of Italians; not a word is said about the millions of pounds we have to pay. In 1920, I was opposed to reparations, but we now need reparations. This country is in a difficult situation as a result of the war. We have received more terrible blows than many people in other parts of the world realise. We are calling on our people to rally to the support of this country. The Italians could have been called upon to assist us. We are in urgent need of more electrical power. Italian engineers are amongst the


most competent electrical engineers in the world—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now getting on to a subject which has nothing to do with the Bill. He is now getting on to electrical power. Really, I do not know what will be discussed before long. I do not want to limit the discussion too rigidly, but we must stick to more or less what is in the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I respect that Ruling, Sir, but may I draw your attention to the fact that we are the people's representatives, and that this is the only opportunity we have to discuss a Peace Treaty which has been drawn up?

Mr. Speaker: This House does not make a Peace Treaty. That comes under the Royal Prerogative.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, Sir, but the House should have an opportunity of saying something about reparations before we part with this Bill. I understand that Italy is being called upon to make no reparations to this country; in fact, we are to finance her. Before we accept this Bill, which is equivalent to the endorsement of the Peace Treaty which has been arrived at, we are entitled within limits, I submit, to raise the question of reparations. Our country is now in a very difficult economic position as a result of the war, and I submit that we should be allowed to raise the question of what reparations Italy could make to this country. We are in a serious fuel and power position, and I was trying to show that Italian engineers could be called upon to make a contribution towards Italian reparations by building hydro-electric stations in this country. However, because of your Ruling, Sir, I shall limit the scope of what I intended to say.
We are also in a very serious position in regard to industrial equipment. We are calling on Germany to make huge reparations by way of such equipment. Yesterday, I was reading in the Library the reports of the negotiations that have taken place. Here, may I say that many of us appreciate the extended service in the Library? We are using it more and more in order to keep ourselves informed on these matters, and I want to pay tribute to the staff of the Library for the increasing service which they are giving to Members of this House. In those reports in the Library it will be found that the

Italians are to be called upon to make reparations to many countries, but not to our own, even though they did damage Malta, London and other places.
Those who were in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) resigned his office as Foreign Secretary—and it was a manly stand that he took at that time—may recall something of what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that propaganda against this country by the Italian Government had been rife throughout the world for years. As we know, the Italians were responsible for creating a situation in Europe which gave rise to the last war. Yet we are not asking them to pay one penny in reparations to our country. I find that Italy is to be called upon to pay reparations to Albania, Ethiopia, Greece and Yugoslavia, and that these reparations must be made within nine years.

Mr. Molson: And also to Russia.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In reading the Treaties yesterday in the Library I must have missed Russia.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It can be found in Article 74.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I readily accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. From my understanding of the position, it is this country that will finance Italy so that she can make these reparation payments. That takes some understanding. I strongly protest that this country should agree to do that after all that Italy has been responsible for, after the anti-British poison she poured out for years before the war, after all the damage that she did during the war, when she bombed London and Malta and torpedoed our Merchant Navy. I am not prepared to be a party to this Bill going through without making a vigorous protest on behalf of our people.

11.48 a.m.

Mr. John Foster: I am afraid that a Debate on Treaties must necessarily be a little scrappy, owing to the nature and scope of possible discussion and the range of points that can be made. I want to draw the attention of the Minister of State to a possible injustice under the Treaties, and to ask him whether it might not be put right either within the limits of the Treaties, or by administrative action.
The point I have in mind is that in all the Treaties the definition of "United Nations nationals" is that the person concerned should be a United Nations national at the date of the Armistice in the case of the Treaty with Hungary and, I think, at the date when Italy came into the war at our side. That leads to the following injustice, which has come to my knowledge in one or two cases—I am sure there are others. British women who married enemies before the war, and whose sympathies were by no means with the enemy during the war, who were anxious not to be in countries like Hungary or Italy during the war, came back to this country the moment they were allowed to do so. They resumed their British nationality, as they were allowed to do under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act. But these women were not treated as United Nations nationals, because they were not British subjects at the operative date. This is a real hardship. They are treated, for instance, just like any other Hungarian nationals.
The same injustice existed after the last war, when many subterfuges were adopted to get around it. British women had to get lawyers in their countries to annul their marriages, so that it could he said that they were never married to an Austrian or a German, but were British all the way though. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the operative Clauses of the Treaty with Hungary he will see, in Article 26, 9 (a) that a United Nations national is an individual who had that status at the date of the armistice with Hungary. But the people I have in mind are people who lost their British nationality on marriage, who were not allowed to resume British nationality because they were confined in Hungary, but who did resume it at the earliest opportunity, and who are now, today, British nationals; and yet they do not get compensation in Hungary on the footing of United Nations nationals. If I am right in my reading of the Treaty, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that this injustice will be removed, because it affects an appreciable number of people.
The only other point on which I want to detain the House is this. All the Treaties contain annexes with very complicated legal provisions about contracts,

periods of limitation, negotiable instruments, and so on. The Treaties are worded in terms obviously designed to suit the legal systems of the various countries. Under this Bill, the Government are taking power to carry out the provisions of those annexes, inside the framework of English law. It is inevitable, if these Treaties are carried out, as they must be, that quite startling changes will be made in the ordinary law of England about the abrogation of treaties by war, about periods of limitation. It looks as if Hungarian nationals will get an advantage over British nationals. Hungarian nationals in Switzerland, for instance, will, apparently, get beneficial extensions of the period of limitation, while British subjects, who were unable to get away from there during the war, will not get that advantage. There are lots of anomalies. I do not want to worry the House with legal details, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree that at least in cases where these Orders in Council are going to effect substantial changes in the ordinary law of England, the House of Commons should have an opportunity of debating the matter on an affirmative Resolution.
Taking the Hungarian Treaty again, Annex 5 (a) (1) and (c), concerning negotiable instruments, it will be necessary for the Government, in carrying out these provisions, to alter the common law of England about the incidence of war and contracts concerning negotiable instruments. This may be quite necessary as we have entered into this international understanding, but I think it will be very inconvenient. I ask the right hon Gentleman to bear these two points in mind—the injustice to British-born women who married enemies, and who, through no fault of their own, were not United Nations nationals on the appropriate date; and whether Orders in Council, to carry out the annexes of the Treaties, can be the subject to affirmative Resolution.

11.55 a.m.

Mr. Mack: We have listened to speeches which, on the whole, have been very even tempered; and, in particular, the House was interested in the very direct and robust speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). I, for my part, should like to say a word or two about the Treaties with Roumania


and Bulgaria. It is good to note there is an atmosphere of understanding, an atmosphere of kindliness, in this Debate; and I should be the last to want to tincture it with acerbity by the introduction of what might be regarded as a controversial aspect. In Roumania, which, as the House may know, I had the opportunity of visiting before any other hon. Member after the war, I saw a people, largely composed of peasant stock, who were naturally friendly to this country. I say that in spite of what may be their record during the war.
On 23rd August, 1944, a most historic day in the Roumanian calendar, the Roumanian people turned their arms against the Nazis. While we all know Roumania played an inglorious part under the domination of men like Antonescu in the early years of the war, the greatest possible credit must be given to them for the fine and splendid efforts they made for 260 days, in their fight against the Germans. The Roumanian Army fought with great courage in Transylvania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, with forces nearly 400,000 strong, which represented from 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the whole of their available troops. They actually sustained, in killed and missing, losses of 5,000 officers, 5,000 n.c.o.s and 160,000 men. As a matter of fact, which is not generally known, Roumania ranks fourth in the list of the nations suffering casualties on the Allied side, after the U.S.S.R.. the United States and Great Britain, in the first against Nazism. When stocktaking is made of the record of a country, when its sins of omission and commission are taken into account, regard must equally be paid to its valiant efforts once it was liberated from the yoke of wicked leaders.
I found in Roumania a desire—a strong desire—to establish friendship with Great Britain. I admit that cynical people may say of those demonstrations of friendship by 250,000 people in Bucharest, that they were laid on. One can make substantial allowances for the natural enthusiasm of a country like that, when the people see a Member of this honoured House, filled with vigour and vitality, with zip, zeal and punch, entering their country—not as an official representative of the Government, it is true, but, at the same time, animated by an honest desire to inquire into their needs, and to try to understand their point of view. But even when allow

ance is made for that, I believe that the people of Roumania want to extend the hand of friendship to this country. I am very happy to see that today, at least, there are Members of this House who reciprocate that desire for friendship, and who see that this gesture of friendship can be brought to fruition only by an equal desire on our side to extend the hand of friendship. When a country is composed of 80 per cent. of peasants, it can never be fundamentally Fascist, because the peasants, by the very nature of their occupation, are not Fascists. They are producers of the elementary food and needs of the people, and they are the people who comprise the bulk of the populations of countries like Roumania and Bulgaria.
The Roumanian Government, whilst willing to co-operate in this Treaty, feel, perhaps, a little aggrieved to think that they have not been able to get those reparations to which they are entitled from Germany for the spoliation and damage and hurt inflicted on their country during the German occupation. At the same time, Dr. Petre Groza and his Government have said to me, and, no doubt to others, they would co-operate to the fullest extent in bringing about the best possible relations, but there is something more in it than that. I am in favour of getting Roumanian wheat into British stomachs, and I would like to see British agricultural equipment in the Roumanian countryside—British ploughs, tractors, and British threshing machines—and I believe there will be great opportunities for British trade there.
The senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—I am rather alarmed at him sometimes, because he often seems to me to be a little misanthropic—was, I thought, a little hard on that country. He said something about what we were going to do to get British oil interests revived in Roumania. I know that a great deal of anti-Roumanian and anti-Russian propaganda has been going about, the argument being that the Russians went to Roumania and deprived that country of the bulk of its material resources, and particularly oil, by way of reparations, and that they so denuded Roumania that the rights of other countries are not going to be respected. In point of fact, that is not quite the position. Whether we like it or not, we must remember that Russia has lost more lives and material than any other country


in the world and the Antonescu régime was, to no small extent, responsible for that. Roumanian troops went to Odessa and looted it, coming back feeling very happy about the whole affair, but that sort of incident does not represent the true feelings of the people of Roumania. They really are a sincere and warm-hearted people who wish to be friendly with this country, and on account of economic, political and other considerations, it is equally desirable that we should introduce that same fraternal spirit into a worthy peace so that we may be as friendly with Roumania as she wishes to be with Britain and America. I think that is a point of view with which few people would quarrel.
But we want something more than a Peace Treaty of words. We have had material disarmament, and I hope there will be no recriminations, no unkindness and no sense of bitterness as a result of what has happened. I am anxious that Roumania should make a great economic recovery. At the moment, on account of a terrible drought, millions of people are dying of hunger, and I think the people of this country ought to recognise the plight of these unhappy people. I know that it is not the only country where people are starving, but, nevertheless, two years of unprecedented drought have put woe and sorrow into the hearts of the Roumanian people, who look to us to help them to rehabilitate their economy, to exchange commodities to a mutual benefit and to establish such a link of friendship as I hope will never be severed by future war.
I now want to turn to that lovely country—and I fuel this deeply in my heart—Bulgaria. It is a romantic country, inhabited by a simple, primitive people who, unfortunately, were at one time, as they readily admit, a satellite of Germany. To their everlasting glory, on the historic day of 9th September, 1944, they purged their country of Fascism, and dealt with their Fascists far more efficaciously than we have dealt with our own in this country. They have rejected their former vicious leaders, and the feelings of the Bulgarian people were released, like the opening of floodgates—

Mr. Paget: Surely, it has always been an old Balkan custom to shoot generals when they lost?

Mr. Mack: I know it is very popular to gibe at the Balkan peoples, but I would remind my hon. Friend, who is a child in these matters and who is not as learned as he might well be, in spite of his lore, kindly spirit and personal qualities, that the people of the Balkans, and particularly the Bulgarians, are as kind, honest, decent and sincere people as any people in Britain, and that is putting them on a high level. It is true that in the past, their bad kings and false leaders plunged them in enterprises which were unworthy of their nation, but the fact is that, today, they have a democratic Government which is determined that such circumstances will never be repeated. We should remember that this is a land which, for over 500 years, was under the domination of the Turks, in which the people were never allowed to develop their culture and their own great natural talents, but which, nevertheless, produced men like Alexander Stambolisky, and women like Tsola Dragocheva, one of the most heroic women the world has ever known, who suffered tortures at the hands of the Nazis; and also the great figure of Georgi Dmitrov, surely one of the greatest and noblest working-class leaders in the world, a fighter against Fascism equal to any man in this House or this country or elsewhere. Bulgaria deserves our respect and admiration for its sufferings—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should address the Chair, and not the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. Mack: I was so fascinated by my subject, Mr. Speaker, that it must have been an involuntary physical movement on my part. What can we get from this country? The Treaty opens up great possibilities of trade in tobacco. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is a smoker. May I ask him if he will be good enough to look at the faces of these Bulgarians in this album which I have here? I hope he will have a look at it. These fascinating people are typical of the peasantry and the workers of Bulgaria, and they can give us tobacco, which must be a very fine economic asset, particularly to this country, if we can get it at a reasonable price. They can give us timber, which is so badly needed by us, and they can supply fruit pulps and hides, as well as essences, such as attar of roses, which I believe the women of this country regard as a semi-necessity. They have made a great fight against the Nazis. They


put all their units into the field, and gave 30,000 of their best young lives in the struggle for liberation. They have, nevertheless, one grievance, which I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend. They still feel that they should have an outlet in Western Thrace to the Aegean Sea. There are 400,000 Thracians who feel very deeply that their claims in that respect have not been fully appreciated in this Treaty. Nevertheless, they are prepared to co-operate wholeheartedly to work within the spirit of that Treaty.
Britain badly needs friends, and friendship is a two-way concern; it means give and take. I have always been one of those who believed that the prestige of our country abroad must be maintained by honourable and righteous methods. I believe that most of the people of the world who know us, love us and respect us. I believe also that we should remember that the prestige of any of these other countries is a vital factor also, not only from the moral aspect, but also from the economic point of view. I would say to my hon. Friends. "When you are dealing with these countries please have regard to the whole of their history and do not necessarily take your advice from diplomatic people who may have had a restricted and chequered existence, or from military men, be they never so able in their own particular vocations. If you want to know something about it, come to people like us—my hon. Friend behind me and others—who go to these places and get to know these people without any particular prejudice or bias, and study them objectively and come to understand them." Although it may not be a pleasant thought for my right hon. Friend, I am always prepared to give him the benefit of my advice if he would not be ashamed to ask me for it from time to time; and if he did, he would not make many mistakes in the Balkans in future.
I conclude by saying how happy I am that we are now about to enter on an era of peace with these countries and, for the gallant peoples of Roumania and Bulgaria, I say that it will evoke a magnificent response in their hearts. I am confident that with understanding on both sides, this will make for an era of prosperity and peace in the Balkans and eventually, let us hope, throughout the world.

12.11 p.m.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I was afraid that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—

Mr. Mack: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is already in error. I am the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I am sorry, but I was about to say that when I saw the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) hand his right hon. Friend a blue case—which proved to contain only photographs—I was afraid that in his flights of oratory about Bulgarian tobacco he might so far haw forgotten the rules of this House as to offer the Minister of State a Bulgarian cigarette.
The Bill which is before the House today comprises only two pages and the Minister of State has explained that it is only a machinery Bill. None the less I think that hon. Members on all sides will agree that longer Bills have said less. I want at the outset to refer to the reparation Clauses in the Roumanian Treaty and to follow up the questions put by my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). In the raparation section of the Roumanian Treaty, Roumania undertakes to pay the sum of 300 million dollars to the Soviet Union in commodities including oil. She further undertakes to make good the restitution of all allied property in Roumania. That Clause involves the assets of the British and American oil companies in Roumania and in particuar it raises the whole question of the price to be paid to us for the oil delivered to the Soviet Union by way of reparations. If my information is correct, no agreement has yet been reached with the Roumanian Government on this point. The first question I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether or not this matter is one which could be referred to the Conciliation Commission which is, I believe, provided for in Article 32. Has that Commission been set up; is it yet functioning, and, if so, perhaps the Minister could tell us what kind of progress has been made in the negotiations in question?
The next point to which I wish to refer is a curious feature in the Roumanian Treaty which has already been pointed out by other hon. Members—namely, Article 21, which concerns the withdrawal


of Allied Forces. Under that Article all Allied troops are to be withdrawn from Roumanian territory within go days of the ratification of the Peace Treaty. But this proviso appears to me to be completely qualified—or I should say nullified—by Section 3 of that Article which allows the Soviet Union to maintain in Roumania an unspecified number of troops for purposes of keeping open their line of communication to Austria. I hope the Minister of State will tell the House at the conclusion of this Debate on exactly what grounds the Soviet Union argued that it was still necessary to keep an unspecified number of troops in Roumania in order to keep open the line of communication with their zone in Austria. Any hon. Member who has taken the trouble to look at a map—as I am sure many have—will have found that the shortest route from Soviet territory to Vienna is from Lwow, now in the Soviet Union, to Cracow in Poland and across Czechoslovakia. This is a distance of 395 miles and I believe that there is a four-line railway running the whole way.
On the other hand, the distance to Vienna from Soviet territory across Roumania is 845 miles, with a single track for part of the way and a double line for the remainder. The arguments do not therefore seem to be very conclusive as to why Russian troops should remain in Roumanian territory on a line of communications operation. Presumably, they would only stay in any case until such time as the Austrian Treaty is signed, which would be a very strong argument that hon. Members on both sides would support for hoping that the present difference of opinion over the Austrian Treaty will soon be cleared up and agreement reached. His Majesty's Government are presumably anxious to open up trade not only with Roumania but with all the Balkan countries, because none of us wants to see those countries become once more a kind of "closed shop" to international trade as was the case in the 1930's under Dr. Schacht's pernicious economic system. I am not quite clear how one trades with a country like Roumania which has a revenue of only 700 million dollars today, which has been bled white by occupational forces, having transferred, either by confiscation or, if a more polite word is preferred, requisition, or again under cover of joint companies, the major part

of its national resources to the occupying Power.
Of the Bulgarian Treaty, I would say only that I hope that the reparations to Greece will include the return of her sorely needed rolling stock, which should have been returned a long time ago under the terms of the Armistice. I must also observe that the recent behaviour of the Bulgarian Government towards diplomatic missions in Sofia hardly augurs well for the dawn of a new era of relationship between Great Britain and the other victorious Powers with Bulgaria. Although the Roumanian and Bulgarian elections were, in my view, a farce, and although none of the original terms of the Moscow Agreement have been carried out, I think that His Majesty's Government were right to accord the normal diplomatic recognition to those countries following the signing of the Treaty, because I do not believe in the principle of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I believe that if we were to withdraw or in this case did not reappoint a Minister, the effect would be to withold the best man from the Mission—if he is not the best man in the Mission then he should not be there—and we would be to that extent reducing the influence which we should have in the country concerned.
As far as the Italian reparations are concerned, I think that one of the most remarkable features—although I have not seen it widely commented upon—is that whereas Italy pays 105 million dollars to Greece in reparations, she pays 100 million dollars to the Soviet Union, and I would not have thought that this was a true reflection of the comparative damage inflicted on those two countries. I should like to ask the Minister a question with regard to Article 79, which gives His Majesty's Government the right to seize Italian property in this country. I understand the reasons why that proviso is inserted in the reparations section of the Treaty, because it gives us a certain leeway against other reparations claims which we have waived. But I question whether, taking the long view, that seizure of Italian property in England would be very wise, because I believe, if it were carried out, the only effect would be to penalise individual Italians who might have bought a house or invested money in England before the war. I should have thought that the sum total of Italian property in the United Kingdom was not


very great, and if we seize an individual Italian's house we are deliberately making an enemy of a friend, because if he had not been a friend he would not have bought a house in England before the war. I know this was one of the questions to be discussed by the Italian Finance Delegation; I do not know if they are still here, but they certainly were a few days ago. I do not know if it would be possible for the Minister of State to give us some indication of how the conversations are proceeding on the question of the seizure of property of individual Italians in the United Kingdom.
I do not think the Italians can accuse us of being ungenerous in the matter of reparations, because we presented a bill, for the world at large to see, of about £2,800 million, and we then withdrew it. I only wish the British information service in Italy at that time had made rather more use of this gesture. I think it was a great pity that it was not fully understood. Of course, I do not wish to pretend that the scaling-down of the Italian reparations was entirely a philanthropic act on the part of Great Britain or the United States. The fact remains that the Italian economy, such as it is today, is almost entirely sustained by British and American assistance. Both countries were certainly the largest contributors to U.N.R.R.A. Therefore, if the burden of reparations were far in excess of Italy's capacity to pay, naturally we and America would be among the countries to suffer most.
I am not happy about the new frontier between Italy and Yugoslavia. I admit that on strictly ethnic grounds, it may be argued that the French line is the correct one, but there are other factors which ought to be taken into account beyond the ethnic factors. I would have thought that the right way to draw a new frontier would be to arrive at a fair balance between ethnic and economic values. My view is that the French line does grave harm to Italy's economic conditions, because it excludes from her almost all her coal, leaving only the Sardinian coal which is of very poor quality, and also takes away from her her bauxite deposits. Before the war Yugoslavia, as the House will know, was herself an exporter of coal. I believe, therefore, that the French line to which we have agreed, is damaging to Italy's economic recovery, which is

essential both for herself and for the rest of Europe. Perhaps the Minister would tell us when the International Commission for the free port of Trieste is to be set up, and who will be the British representative on that Commission.
A further question I want to ask is about the Italian Navy. Under the naval Clauses of the Treaty, 60 per cent. of the Italian Navy is at the disposal of the Allied Powers. This is one of the Sections of the Treaty most bitterly resented by the Italians themselves. They recognise that, according to the traditional rules of naval warfare, we are entitled to do what we like with the Italian Fleet; but they cannot square the working of their passage, as they claim justifiably to have done, with the handing over of units of their Fleet to countries against whom they never fought an action on sea. I wonder if the Minister could tell us how far discussions have gone with regard to the actual parcelling out of units of the Italian Fleet. This matter has been under discussion among the four Powers concerned, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us, if it has yet been decided, how many warships, of which type, are to be handed over, and to which of the four Powers concerned.
The Italian Treaty arouses emotions on both sides. As the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) said, no Treaty which we could make with Italy could ignore the stab in the back in 1940, or the grave damage which she inflicted upon us from then until 1943. On the other hand, there is the other side of the medal, and I wish to be fair and impartial in this matter. From the end of 1943 onwards, Italy rendered the Allies very considerable service. She entered upon a period of co-belligerency. She was told to work her passage, and I think she can claim to have done so.

Mr. Ellis Smith: When she saw the way things were going.

Major Mott-Radelyffe: Yes, but we must try to weigh both sides of the question, and strike an impartial balance. I am trying to look at the point of view of both sides impartially. There was unquestionably the stab in the back, followed by the assistance rendered during the last three years of the war. During the period of co-belligerency, the Italians provided us with 25,000 operational troops who fought with the Fifth and Eighth Armies in the


North of Italy. They also provided us with a large number of auxiliary troops who worked on the lines of communications. The partisans rendered very considerable assistance in the North, and we used the Fleet for convoy and other work in the Mediterranean. Nor must we forget the many thousands of Allied prisoners of war who, during their escape, owed their lives to the devotion, loyalty and courage of Italian civilians.
The Italians were promised an early peace in return for the assistance they rendered. They now claim that they are not signing the Treaty any earlier than any of the other satellite Powers. I do not believe that the delay in making a peace treaty with Italy was entirely of our own making. It would be extremely difficult, in the first place, to draw up a comprehensive treaty with Italy until the whole country was liberated We would have to co-ordinate the terms of the Treaty with Italy in relation to the terms of the treaties with other satellite Powers, in accordance with the wishes of the Allied Powers. Moreover, Italy has received her independence and during her period of co-belligerency, the terms of the original Armistice Agreement were considerably relaxed; and the Allied Commission did not merely function as an Allied body—a British and American body—solely in order to see that the Armistice terms were carried out. It also nursed Italy very carefully, and, I believe, to her great benefit during what I might call the convalescent period. She received, and is receiving still, from us and the Americans, considerable economic, assistance.
I believe we would he unwise to dwell too much upon the past in an attempt to balance injuries inflicted against assistance received. We can each of us judge individually, according to our own point of view how he scales are weighed, but I am certain that, in the long run, Italy has a substantial contribution to make to post-war civilisation in Europe, in conjunction with the Allied Powers. The key to her attitude and the extent of that contribution is bound up perhaps more closely with her future relations with Yugoslavia than upon any other single factor, and here I believe the Soviet Union themselves could make a very substantial contribution if they were prepared to do so. But if the administration of the free zone of Trieste is to be a continual source of

friction, if there are going to be incessant frontier incidents on the new frontier between Italy and Yugoslavia, and, above all, if we, the United States and France as Western democracies show ourselves either unwilling or unable to ensure for Italy her just rights under the terms of the Peace Treaty, I believe it is questionable whether future Italian Governments will have much faith in the democratic way of life of which we in this country are the leading exponents.
In conclusion, I hope that I carry the whole House with me when I say, we do indeed trust that the terms of these peace treaties will be carried out, not merely in the letter but also in the spirit; and that, far from sowing the seeds of future discontent, which may lead to future human unhappiness and suffering, they will, on the contrary, lay the foundations for a lasting peace.

12.38 p.m.

Mr. John E. Haire: Like most hon. Members, I welcome this Bill, because it enables us to speed on the Treaties, and also enables this Rouse to send a message of peace and good will to nations which have lately been our enemies These treaties raise a number of problems, many of which were the causes of the last war. In particular, we have the minority problem, which is particularly noticeable in the Danubian Basin and South-East Europe. We have the whole question of trade on the Danube; we have the question of the political and economic situation in that area; and I feel that we should study these problems carefully before we finally give our assent to this Bill. First, I think we do not do justice in this House as often as we should to the honest attempt which is being made in this area to establish democratic government. I think it is recognised by most, that the countries of the Balkans and of Central Europe were dragged into the war by totalitarian regimes, and they have sadly paid the price; they have been bitterly disillusioned. But out of the war, out of their underground movements, they are attempting in these countries—in some more successfully than in others—to build regimes which we believe are or can be democratic. I believe it is the purpose of this House to encourage those new democratic regimes, and I regret to say that frequently we do not rise to the opportunity as we should.
For example, I want to refer to the new democratic situation in Hungary. Hungary was dragged into the war by an aristocratic feudal regime which, before the war, had not allowed to its people any width of franchise. Before the war, the Government in Hungary was one of the first totalitarian Governments in Europe. Today, there is a coalition Government, elected in a free election, struggling hard, and not always easily, to carry out its democratic principles. It is not at all easy in a coalition Government, representative of a wide sweep of political views, to reach a common platform. But I believe that in the last year that attempt has been largely successful, in spite of the difficulties which are at present being encountered. Since the liberation that Government has carried out a land reform which has been most necessary in Hungary for centuries—and it has carried it out most successfully. During the last year it has introduced a progressive policy of nationalisation. Hon. Members opposite may not agree with that, but it is in line with the general wish of the Hungarian population. During the last year there have been many measures of social reform. These advances are due to the new Government in Hungary to which we are offering this Treaty.
We ought to help these Governments to carry out these Treaties. I believe that the Treaty which we, along with the other United Nations concerned, are offering to Hungary is largely a punitive treaty. I remember that after the last war the Treaty of Trianon was not received in this country with favour by many hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) as well as hon. Members on this side complained in the years after 1921, that the Treaty of Trianon was a disgrace to this country. It greatly reduced the size of that small country; it reduced its population; and it created minority problems where it ought not to have created them. Today, not only have we not tried to revise that Treaty, hut, in my opinion, we have worsened the situation. We have created fresh minority problems. The Treaty which we are offering to Hungary out-Trianon's Trianon. I can see no recognition in the Treaty now being offered of the fact that, however late in the war it may have been, Hungary, along with the other satellite nations, did ask for an armistice and come over to our side. My

hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) may say, "Yes, that was when they saw how the ball was rolling." But I am sure he will agree with me that these small nations had no control over their destinies at all, either before or, indeed, during the war. In the case of Italy, I will concede the pain—

Mr. Ellis. Smith: I ought to make it clear that I was not dealing with Italy only.

Mr. Haire: I am glad to have that assurance. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees with the point I am now making.

Mr. Smith: Certainly.

Mr. Haire: These small nations did come out of the war, in my opinion, as quickly as they could. In the case of Hungary, there was an attempt—a misguided attempt, it is true—to make an armistice six months before they eventually got rid of the Nazis. It was bungled, I think, by the then Regent Horthy; it had bad luck, and it was only four or five months later that the armistice was finally accomplished. In the Treaty there is no recognition of the fact that they did attempt to get out of the war. I have tried to read the peace negotiations with some care, but I regret that I can see very little sign in the Paris records of the voice of Britain being raised to recognise, not only the efforts made to get out of the war, but the difficulties in which these countries are now placed. I feel—and here I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke—that in many ways the Treaties being offered to these satellite nations are worse and more punitive than the Treaty being offered to Italy.
Hon. Members opposite have mentioned the question of reparations and the anomalies which exist in that regard. It is interesting to note, for example, that the sum of 330 million dollars is being charged against Italy; yet the sum of 300 million dollars is being charged against Hungary, 300 million dollars against Roumania, and 300 million dollars against Finland. I want to know the significance of this mystic 300 million dollars. It seems to me to be completely arbitrary, and it certainly does not appear to be in ratio to the damage done to the Allied Nations by Italy and by these satellite countries.

Professor Savory: Not by Finland.

Mr. Haire: This House should pay the greatest attention to the minority problems which this Bill and these Treaties do not remove. We remember well that in 1938 and 1939 it was always under the pretext of minority difficulties that Hitler played his game of annexation, Today, we still have minorities in South-East Europe, but I regret to say that these treaties do not appear to give sufficient guarantees to the unfortunate persons concerned. It is rather difficult to see what principle has been adopted. An ethnic principle seems to be adopted in one case, but not in another; an ethnic principle seems to have been applied in the case of Trieste, but not in the case of Transylvania. One of the burning problems in the Danubian Basin has been the Transylvanian problem. There you find 1,500,000 Magyars placed under alien rule. This Treaty does not remove that difficulty. Requests were put forward for even a small slice of territory which would have helped them, but they were not accepted, though I am very happy to see that the Roumanian Government have conceded to that minority full citizen rights and all the fundamental freedoms. I have been in or near that area three times since the war, and I believe that there that minority is more hopeful than it has ever been.
When we turn to another minority problem the situation is very much worse, and here I refer to the minority problem of Slovakia. This concerns some 650,000 Magyars who are living on the Slovakian side of the Danube and some 72,000 Slovaks living on the Hungarian side of the Danube, and it appears to be difficult to solve. Since the war the Czechoslovak Government have taken the view that they must try to create a homogeneous State, and have, therefore expelled the Germans from the Sudetenland. I believe that the attempt to apply the same method to a minority which has never been guilty to the same extent of a subversive policy is in contravention of all that is best in democratic principles. Since the war these half million or more Magyars in Slovakia have been deprived not only of employment rights but also of property rights. They have been deprived of the right to use their own language officially—

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with the Treaties of Peace with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland; we are not talking about Czechoslavakia.

Mr. Haire: This minority problem arose during the discussion of the Treaty, and is referred to in Article 5, and if I may be permitted I will come quickly to that point. Their own language has been largely forbidden in public places, education and religious freedom have been curtailed. For these reasons I believe that Slovakia at the moment is probably one of the black spots of Europe.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not want to increase your difficulties, Mr. Speaker, but this does raise a great controversy, and I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that before the war Czechoslovakia was the finest democratic State in Europe.

Mr. Haire: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, and that is why I am so surprised that the situation which has developed in Slovakia is so undemocratic. I believe it has arisen because of internal political difficulties. However, I will come to the discussion which occurred during the peace negotiations on this point. Both sides presented a case, and the United Nations found it difficult to draw a line, so they agreed that there should be bilateral negotiations between the two parties. I think that was a wise decision, but unfortunately those bilateral negotiations have not met with any success. The situation, which showed signs of improvement, has considerably worsened within the last three months, and in the extreme weather of January last many unfortunate persons fled across the frontier because of the new edicts which had been made in Slovakia.
Those bilateral negotiations have broken down. Tinder the new Czechoslovakian labour edicts many Magyars have been moved to other parts of Slovakia; their families have been left behind, and in some cases the farms they were living on seized. I would urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to go further than he assured me he would in an answer to a question of mine in the House, when he said that the British Government were seeing what they could do in this matter. By Article 5 of the Treaty,
Should no agreement be reached within a period of six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Czechoslovakia shall have the right to bring this question before the Council of Foreign Ministers and to request the assistance of the Council in effecting a final solution.
Has only Czechoslovakia the right to bring that case to the United Nations? Cannot


Britain bring it at once, and is Hungary within her rights in referring the matter, as she has already done, to the representatives of the four great Powers in Budapest? Whatever may be the solution of this problem, and it is a very vexed one, I hope both those countries will soon be able to cure this running sore in their side and face the future with the hope of greater friendship and understanding.
One of the territorial changes which occurred as a result of this Treaty was the cession of what is known as the "Bratislava bridgehead." Some three villages, a few square miles of land and 20,000 population have been ceded by Hungary to Czechoslovakia. The question immediately arises, can we guarantee to the population transferred with that territory all the necessary human rights and privileges? I am not in entire agreement with this cession, though I recognise that it may be of value to Bratislava to develop its port facilities, but I think it was carried out more for strategic reasons—and indeed that point was put forward in the peace negotiations. If it is for strategic reasons that the bridgehead has been given, may I ask for whom and against whom? I should like the Minister of State to tell us. If it means that a few more thousand Magyars are to be transferred from this territory, then is it unreasonable to ask that in some other place there should be a cession of an equivalent amount of land in order to provide them with the means of subsistence? One of the difficulties in this minority problem arises as a result of the land reform to which I have previously referred. The land of Hungary has been parcelled out into units of five or ten acres and practically every peasant has a little farm, but there is no land left, and if a minority has to be moved into Hungary there is the difficulty of finding them a livelihood.
I wish to refer once again to reparations. My view of the economic situation as I have seen it in Hungary on several occasions is that 300 million dollars, at 1938 values to be paid within eight years, is far too heavy a burden, and I am happy to think that we in this country have included no demand in that total. We quite rightly take the view that heavy reparations would prevent the economic recovery of some of these countries. But 300 million dollars is a vast penalty which, in a country which has been wrecked

and ruined by the war, must be almost impossible to bear. I only hope that in some way the demands that we ourselves make for the restoration of British property in Hungary can be somehow lessened. It is agreeable to think that we have reduced them from 100 per cent. to 66 per cent., and that possibly we may even be able to postpone our demands.
As a result of this Treaty I believe that Hungary recognises the great friendship which Britain has attempted to show to her. She recognises our difficulties in trying to find a just peace. It is perfectly clear to any one who knows Hungary today that there is a very great desire in that country for friendship, for trade and for full and cordial relations with this country. I hope we will not be found wanting in giving her the full opportunity to enjoy them.

12.52 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I must drag the House back from the interesting speech on Czechoslovakia and Hungary to which we have listened from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) to concentrate for a few moments on something less nostalgic and more mundane, namely, the two lines at the beginning of this Bill which say:
to do all such things as may be proper and expedient for giving effect to the said Treaties.
From there I should like to lead the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works, who I hope will carry my words to his right hon. Friend the Minister of State and also to the President of the Board of Trade, firstly, to the question of the reparations Clause, about which we have already heard a number of views, and secondly to some words in the Preamble of the Treaty of Peace with Italy which read:
to support Italy's application to become a member of the United Nations and also to adhere to any convention concluded under the auspices of the United Nations.
The self-abnegation and altruism shown by this country at the conclusion of two wars are having some curious effects. The clemency of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, or perhaps I should more properly say the Prime Minister, is, in fact, producing some effects which are having a pretty detrimental reflection on certain parts of our industry. One thing which the Italian people learned


thoroughly before the war was that intricate German technique of using double or triple exchange systems. The reparations, in which we take no part and from which a number of other nations are benefiting, are forcing the Italian people in order to meet them to resuscitate their industry as quickly as possible and by any means which they can. One of the industries for which Italy has always been well known and which is starting to thrive again is the industry of shipbuilding. At the present time the Italian shipbuilders, no doubt in order to be able to meet these reparations, are, in fact, undercutting by something like 30 per cent. comparable British prices. Only the other day inquiries for quite a fleet of vessels came not only to this country but also to Italy from South America. As a result of those inquiries from the Argentine and also of a similar case which arose recently in Turkey, the Italian price was something like 30 per cent. cheaper than the best Britain could do.
That result was achieved by the technique of using double exchanges. While the Italian shipbuilder has to convert half the price for the ship he has delivered into dollars or pesos at the standard rate of exchange, he is allowed to use the black market rate of exchange in respect of the other half of the contract price. The effect of that is that it makes the contract price extremely attractive, and it strikes once again at one of our industries and gives another twist of the tourniquet on the flow of our trade. These Treaties are going to be ratified very shortly and the Government are taking power to appoint such controls as are required under this Bill to carry out the spirit of the Peace Treaties. So may I underline at this point once again the Italian obligation to adhere to any convention which has been concluded under the auspices of the United Nations. One of those conventions is Bretton Woods, and the Bretton Woods Agreement is expressly designed to stop this manipulation of exchanges under which the detrimental action which I have already explained can take place.
I hope, therefore, that when these Treaties are passed and when this Bill has been passed by Parliament, His Majesty's Government will see, in fact, that Italy does become a signatory to the

Bretton Woods Convention and so stops the manipulation of exchanges. If she shows any reluctance to do so, I hope that the powers taken under the Clause which I first read, namely, to appoint a control to see that this manipulation of exchanges can no longer take place, will, in fact, be adopted. Altruism and magnanimity are noble qualities, but the defence of our own trade and consequently the standard of living of our own people is a noble quality, too.

12.58 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison). Where we see our own industries destroyed by reparations which we ourselves participate in we have only ourselves to blame, but where we see the same thing happening to our industries because other people are taking the reparations and we are not, it is perhaps even more irritating.
I would in the very few words I have to say like to dissociate myself rather strongly from the speeches of both the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) and of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) for precisely opposite reasons. The most remarkable thing about those two speeches was that the two gentlemen who were delivering them seemed to agree with each other when they were enunciating principles which were as categorically opposite as one could imagine. The hon. Member for Stoke was demanding vengeance upon the Italian people whilst the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, as far as Roumania was concerned, was arguing that her admirable conduct should be recognised and rewarded. After all, both of these peoples were brought into the war without having very much choice in the matter. The only difference seemed to be that the individual Italian had rather less choice in what he was ordered to do by Mussolini, but whenever he got the opportunity to change sides he did it rather quicker than the Roumanian. If such steps by Roumania are to be regarded by us as admirable I find it difficult to see how the same cannot be said of Italy.
But with Bulgaria—really, why must we have panegyrics about Bulgaria? If the record of any nation has been quite


abominable, it has been that of Bulgaria. They were the first of Hitler's Balkan satellites. They came in to turn upon the Greeks and upon the Yugoslavs. They were the one Hitler satellite which never gave him the slightest anxiety until Hitler had been defeated, upon which they murdered the set of rulers whom they had so faithfully followed up to date and put in another set of rulers quite as autocratic and rather more bloodthirsty. Why that should be praised as the great unique date in Bulgarian history, I find difficult to follow. It is at least the fourth time that the Bulgars have murdered one set of rulers and imposed the murderers. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is not here. When he appeals to u, to consider the whole history, I would say that ever since the Bulgars, as a Hunnish tribe, arrived in Europe, I think in about the fifth century, their history has been simply deplorable. Let us not go into sentimental nonsense of that sort. I apologise for having digressed in this way upon matters which really are irrelevant.
What I wish to speak about is this Bill. I am sorry that the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is not here at the moment. In one of those speeches which we all so much enjoy in this House, he dealt with a point with which I wanted to deal. He said that this Bill took all jurisdiction from the courts in regard to anything that was done for the performance of these Treaties. Another hon. Member who followed him made the similar point that it was undesirable, for the purpose of performing these Treaties, to legislate in matters which affect private as well as public law by Orders in Council. I agree that there is a good deal to be said for that point of view, but I would like to put an opposite point.
When a country comes to the Treaty table to negotiate, it is absolutely essential that the Government that makes the Treaty should be in a position, and should be known to be in a position, to deliver the goods without any question. That has been a great difficulty with the Americans. When the Americans are at a Treaty table, neither they nor anybody else are really in a position to know whether they can deliver the goods. The Treaties must go back for ratification and it may be that the Supreme Court in America will declare unconstitutional, as it has on

occasions, things which the American Government have agreed to do in Treaty negotiations. That makes negotiations most difficult. People who are negotiating are not apt to give so good a bargain if they feel that the bargain they have made may be interfered with and altered by the domestic courts of one of the people sitting round the table. Therefore, I suggest that this is an occasion where one ought to submit to such domestic inconveniences that may arise from excluding from the courts consideration of steps necessary to the performance of this Treaty, and excluding the convenience of having matters affecting domestic law dealt with by this House rather than by Orders in Council, in order that we may make it abundantly clear that the Government of Britain at a Treaty table can perform, without reference to anybody, what she has bargained to do. I commend that to the House.
There are at present a large number of Yugoslavs in Italy. They were men who came out when the Mihailovitch movement broke down. I will not go into the question of who was right between Mihailovitch and Tito. There are all sorts of views with regard to that. On the other hand, a point upon which I do not think there is very much difference of opinion is that the ordinary peasants who were driven out of their country were perfectly sincere people struggling in what they believed to be a proper cause. In Italy at the moment they are in very great and pressing danger. There are still the Italian prisoners of war and these men can be used as a bargaining lever to extract the Yugoslavs from Italy for what is, quite frankly, the purpose of murder. I feel that these are people who came to us, were accepted by us, and that we bear a strong moral responsibility for them. I urge upon the Minister of State that in the performance of these Treaties he should make it very clear that the Yugoslavs in Italy are a British responsibility. We are morally responsible, and anybody who sends those men to a place where their lives are in danger should be answerable for those lives to us.

1.8 p.m.

Professor Savory: I am delighted to be able to say that I am in full agreement with almost every word spoken by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I thoroughly endorse what he has said with


regard to Bulgaria and the Yugoslav refugees in Italy. I also congratulate an old pupil of Queen's University, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire), upon his very able and impartial statement on the case for Hungary. There again, I myself wished to speak on the same lines but, as I agreed with every word which he said in regard to Hungary, this dispenses me from the necessity of going at length into this subject.
In regard to the Treaty as a whole, this is a very historic moment and I am sorry that there is such a small House. It has always been the prerogative and the privilege of the House of Commons to express its approval or disapproval of Treaties. If we go back to the reign of Queen Anne, we remember the very ardent discussions which took place on the Treaty of Utrecht. Again, we have not forgotten the heroic efforts of George III to force approval of the Treaty of Paris in 1760, though it was not nearly as advantageous to this country as it should have been in view of our amazing victories during the Seven Years War. When we come to 1815 and see the length of the discussions which took place in this House on the Treaty of Vienna, we feel that we are following a very great tradition. I only regret that we have so little time, that all these Treaties are being combined in one Bill, and that it is very difficult for us to discuss them in detail.
I am glad to see the Minister of State on the Bench opposite because I want to make this appeal to him from a practical point of view. It is exceedingly difficult and very disappointing when one reads through these Treaties to have detailed references made to maps and then to look for the map which is said to be there and find that it is not there. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible for hon. Members, by paying, to get the full editions of the Treaties with the maps because I have had to go to very great difficulty in borrowing from my French friends some of the detailed maps in order to understand some of these rectifications of frontiers in the Treaties. It seems to me that when Treaties are submitted to the House which depend so much upon geography it is rather hard not to give hon. Member, the maps on which the Treaties are based.
There is a further general consideration which is a very important one. I greatly

regret that we have so far gone back from the ancient tradition that the French language was the international language of Europe and the language by which Treaties should be interpreted. I do not wish to depreciate my own mother tongue, but I am bound to say, when I take the English text of these Treaties and compare it with the French, I see at once how infinitely superior the French drafting is. In fact, many of these Clauses are drafted in such English that it is reminiscent of what we have to put up with here in this House on the Finance Bill, and it is necessary to read the French text in order to understand what those Clauses mean.
The Treaty of Utrecht was the Treaty which for the first time broke with the old Latin tradition; it was drafted in French and the French text was the sole authentic text. That was also the case with the Treaty of Vienna and with almost every subsequent Treaty of European importance. It was very regrettable that the Treaty of Versailles departed from this great tradition. It was stated in the Treaty of Versailles that both the English and the French texts were valid. Now we have gone a step further. In the case of the Finnish Treaty, for example, it was drawn up in Russian, Finnish, English and French. I submit, from a small knowledge of history, that if there is a dispute over these Treaties we shall find if the case comes before the International Court at The Hague that because we have not adopted the French language, the historic diplomatic language of Europe, as our sole guiding text, we shall have endless disputes as to the meaning of the Russian or English text and so on.
Having made these preliminary remarks—I do not know whether I carry'the House with me, but on this point of language I feel very strongly—I pass now to the text of the Treaties. Let me take first the Italian Treaty. I am very sorry that no explanation has been given to the House in view of the attacks which have been made upon France with regard to these slight modifications of the territory between France and Italy under the Italian Treaty. May I offer a defence, because I have studied these questions on the spot? The reason for these changes is historical. When in 1860 the Duchy of Savoy and the County of Nice were handed over to France as compensation for the marvellous victories she had won against


Austria—Magenta and Solferino—under which Lombardy as taken from Austria and was transferred to Italy, this was the reward of France, but the French people were exceedingly anxious that this annexation of the Counties of Nice and Savoy should not take place till after a plebiscite. The people of both these districts ratified by enormous majorities their adhesion to France, but unfortunately, when the transfer of these two territories was made, certain regrettable sentimental considerations were allowed to dominate the geographical point of view. The King of Italy said that in those upper valleys he had been accustomed to hunt the chamois and that it would be a very hard thing to deprive him of his hunting ground. That is why in the County of Nice instead of the frontier following the old line of division between the County and Italy, which was a division according to the watershed, the heads of those valleys remained Italian territory whereas all the rest of the valleys were French. The result was that those French peasants who in the summer sent their cattle right up to the heads of those valleys and went there themselves to live in chalets were in Italian territory.
During the mild regime of the ancient monarchy they were unmolested, but as soon as Mussolini came into power he disturbed these people and evicted them in spite of the Treaty. He refused to allow them to occupy for their pastures the upper valleys of Tende and Brigue. Here again I must protest to the Minister of State that in the Treaty we are using Italian names. We should not use the Italian names of Briga and Tenda for districts which are French and purely French speaking. Do let the Minister of State in his reply employ the names Brigue and Tende. What I have said applies to those two changes made on the frontier between the old County of Nice and Italy, a geographical and historical rectification which is amply justified in spite of the charges brought against the French of having Imperialistic designs.
I come now to the ancient Duchy of Savoy. There a very important change is the rectification of the Mont Cenis frontier. Those hon. Members who, as I have done, have crossed that frontier on foot will recollect that Italy when she ceded the Duchy of Savoy insisted on maintaining the whole of the strategic points dominating that historic pass of Mont Cenis in

spite of the old clearly marked frontier between the Duchy of Savoy and Italy. The French have never forgotten this, because when war broke out with Italy—in 1940—we have heard a good deal today about the "stab in the back" but I prefer to call it the "coup de Jarnac"—it was over the Mont Cenis that the forces of Italy passed in such numbers, Mussolini having beforehand carefully planned this coup.

Mr. Mack: Is it right that we should have this geographical perambulation into France and other parts, which is really outside this Bill?

Professor Savory: In view of the immense latitude that was allowed to the hon. Member by Mr. Speaker when he spoke about matters which are not in the Treaties at all, surely I am in Order in referring to these very specific Clauses in the Treaty, especially as the Minister of State has not given any explanation so far as I have heard of these changes? Now I come to the important fortress of Briançon. That was the most famous fortress of the great Marshal Vauban but it was completely dominated by the Italian frontier, and in order to give France security, there has been a very slight rectification of the frontier there. I only regret that the French demand was not fully acceded to and that the question of Mont Genèvre was not also settled. Hon. Members will remember that it was by the Pass of Mont Genèvre that Hannibal crossed into Italy. [Laughter.] I hope that I am not going too far back into history, but it is the Pass which has in all history seriously threatened the security of France. Lastly we come to the Little St. Bernard. There again we are in the old Duchy of Savoy. I have crossed it three or four times on foot, and I have always been amazed that the French ever conceded this frontier at the time of the transfer in 1860 of the Duchy of Savoy to France because, from the French point of view, it was so absolutely indefensible. Here again Mussolini took advantage when he struck his blow in 1940.
There is one other point that I regret the right hon. Gentleman in helping to draft this Treaty did not insist upon, because of the very great British interest in the matter, and that is the rights of the Waldensian Valleys. Our interest in these valleys goes back to the terrible massacre of 1655 when it will be remembered that


Cromwell dictated that magnificent letter to Milton protesting against these atrocities, and Milton wrote that marvellous Ode:
Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints Whose bones lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,
Even they who kept thy faith so pure of old
When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones.
Cromwell proclaimed a fast and ordered a collection in all the churches on behalf of these people which, for that period, reached a very large sum. It was invested in trustees for the benefit of these people, and the interest was regularly paid—in fact it was only commuted in recent times. We have an immense interest in this district in maintaining its rights which were guaranteed by the famous Charter of 1848 brought about by the efforts of our ambassador in Turin. ratified again by the Italian Constitution. Can we forget that General Beckwith, the hero of Waterloo, the great General who lost his leg when fighting by the side of Wellington, took an immense interest in these valleys? He went all through England and Scotland, through Northern and Southern Ireland, and collected large sums for the building of over Too British schools, and handed the money over to trustees with the proviso that instruction should be given in the native language, namely, the French language. Will it be believed that Mussolini seized and confiscated the whole of those schools, and prohibited the teaching in those schools of the French language?
I remember, when I was out there in 1938, going through the churches and seeing workmen tear down the texts in French, and substitute for them texts in Italian. I went out to attend the Synod of the Church with the credentials of our Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of all Ireland, and also with the credentials of the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the Huguenot Society of London. The Moderator asked me to address the Synod at La Tour, the capital of these valleys, and I said, "I insist upon my constitutional right to address the Synod in French." The Moderator said, "But you have prepared a speech in Italian?" I said, "Yes, but I will only deliver my speech in Italian if I have to submit to force majeure." They

said, "We shall have to telephone to Mussolini to get permission for you to address the Synod in French." I said, "Do it, and I will pay for the message." I am glad to say that I did vindicate the honour of this country and the Treaties to which this country is a party, because, never let it be forgotten, when the Duke of Savoy became King of Italy, he guaranteed to these people the use of the French language, and, in the Constitution, they were allowed even in the Parliament of Rome to address the Assembly in French. They took me—and it is relevant now—to see the wall which was built on the instructions of Cromwell to keep back the overflow of the River Pellice which otherwise would have flooded the village of Bobbio. If only the Duke of Bedford, when draining the Fens, had erected such a wall, we should not have been faced with the catastrophe with which His Majesty's Government are confronted today. Cromwell's wall is still standing, it is still effective, it protected the village only the other day from another serious flood. [An HON. MEMBER: "We could do with it here."] I would, therefore, appeal to my right hon. Friend that we have a great historical and sentimental interests in this country and that it is for us, before the Treaty is ratified, to see that assurances are given to these people that their religious and linguistic rights will be protected.
Further, while I am dealing with the Italian Treaty, I would like to say that I cordially agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major MottRadclyffe) who insisted on the great hardship to which the Italian people are being subjected with regard to the whole territory of Venezia Giulia. I held very strongly, after going over the district myself minutely, that the line suggested by President Wilson, after the most careful and impartial inquiry, was the real ethnic and economic line. We have, unfortunately, gone back from that position and we have placed the town of Pola, the most important port of Pola, in Yugoslav territory, with the result that the other day we saw the exodus of the whole population of 75,000 people. Nothing has been seen like it in history since 1870, when the French-speaking population of Alsace and Lorraine refused to accept German citizenship, and crossed the frontier into France. I cannot help thinking that Italy has been


treated with extraordinary harshness in this respect, and the frontier which has been adopted is one which will be the seed of future trouble. An international port has been set up at Trieste. Very well, but do hon. Members realise the fact that, as Yugoslavia controls all the railways, Yugoslavia can divert the whole of the traffic from Trieste, can starve Trieste commercially, because she can divert to Pola and to Fiume the whole of that traffic and can leave Trieste stranded so that the grass will be growing upon the quays? I know that our valiant Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a great fight for justice for Italy, both in Paris and New York, and I only regret that his efforts were not more successful.
Let us pass for a moment to the Treaty with Bulgaria. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who spoke so sincerely and with such conviction with regard to Bulgaria is not here—

Mr. Mack: He is.

Professor Savory: I mean the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who opposed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack); I regret that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme did not hear his reply. It is very unfortunate that Greece has not been given the rectification of the frontier which she demanded. If we look at the map—I have had to borrow a map from a French friend, as the right hon. Gentleman has not provided us with any—we see that the frontier now between Greece and Bulgaria is the most fragile in the whole of Europe. It has a length of 480 kilometres, and a depth of 30 to 40 kilometres. One hundred thousand people had to abandon their homes at the time of the Bulgarian aggression. Now Greece puts forward a very reasonable demand that there should be a rectification of that frontier, and that the mountain heights dominating the frontier should be handed to her. She knows what happened at the time of the German invasion. The Germans seized Salonika, and isolated the whole of the Greek troops to the East of that town. That will happen again in the case of further trouble between Bulgaria and Greece. Bulgaria will advance, and occupy the town of Salonika, and completely cut off the whole of the district to the East. I feel that we have been very wrong, in view of the heroism of Greece, and the way in which she fought

on our side, and enabled our retreating Armies to escape to Crete and Egypt by endless sacrifices, that she deserves a better fate, and this was the very least rectification of the frontier to which she was entitled.

Mr. Mack: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting to the House that at present we should make a rectification of that frontier line, so that Greece could dominate the Plains of Plovdiv, and if necessary carry an aggressive campaign into Bulgaria?

Professor Savory: Is that not laughable? Can anyone who knows the countries concerned and the present amount of troops in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, dominated by and supplied from Soviet Russia, think that poor Greece is going to be a danger to Bulgaria? It is fantastic, and it is not reasonable to bring such ideas before the House.
Now I come to a point which I need not elaborate, because the hon. Member for Wycombe, who has succeeded another great Ulsterman in that constituency, has put forward the case with such strength and conviction. I very strongly support his arguments. We should never forget that the whole Province of Transylvania was given to Roumania in 1918. This was reversed by Hitler and Mussolini in 1940, when they divided the country into two, not pleasing either party. Without any semblance of an inquiry, without sending a committee to the spot, without appointing a boundary commission, but by a stroke of the pen, the whole of this country of Transylvania was given back once more to Roumania. In Northern Ireland we are accustomed to border difficulties and boundary troubles; that is a matter with which we are extremely familiar. From this experience, I maintain that it would have been possible to have adopted a line much more in accordance with the ethnic and economic features of the problem. Does the House realise that the number of Hungarians who are being transferred to Roumania is nearly half of the whole Transylvanian population? It an immense proportion, and a very serious injustice is being done to those people of Hungary, those people for whom, in spite of errors, we cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is the hon. Member


suggesting that that part of the Vienna Award should stand?

Professor Savory: I am suggesting that I have a right to protest that no boundary commission was employed, but, by a stroke of the pen, it was decided to go back to the injustice of the Treaty of Trianon. An impartial commission would have devised a line, which would have been infinitely more satisfactory to both parties. At the same time, I deeply sympathise with Roumania, though she has acquired this immense territory. I feel even that Transylvania scarcely compensates her for the loss of a territory to which she was so historically entitled as that of Bessarabia. I must raise my protest on these benches against the alienation of Bessarabia, which is one of the most deplorable Clauses in the Treaty.
Lastly, I feel in honour bound to put in a plea for Finland. When Finland was invaded in 1940, the whole House, and the whole country, expressed deep sympathy with her. It was a war of aggression, a war without any historical or political justification. We all admired her resistance and, in fact, wanted to send an army to help her. I do not defend what took place afterwards, although I know from the facts that it was under absolute compulsion and terrorism that she was forced to throw in her lot subsequently with Germany. Even so, I submit that this Treaty is doing very grave injustice to Finland. I think that to transfer not merely the whole of the territory of Karelia, but to deprive her of her access to the Arctic Ocean at Petsamo, is inflicting something on her which she does not deserve. The hon. Member for Wycombe spoke about the 300 million dollars which he complained were being exacted from Hungary. Are we not much more entitled to complain of the 300 million dollars which we are exacting from a poor country like Finland, deprived as she is by the Treaty of so many of her territorial resources? I cannot help feeling that we are dishonouring ourselves by putting our signatures to this Treaty, and I deeply regret it from the point of view of the history and traditions of this country, which always supported Finland in maintaining her independence against the Tsars. Now not only is she to be condemned to these territorial changes which I have described but Russia is given a lease of the territory of Porkkala-Udd, an area near Helsinki,

where she can maintain forces, dominate the country, and deprive it of any vestige of independence.
I join with my colleagues here, and with friends on the other side of the House, in expressing the hope that these Treaties will, in spite of their defects, bring about a real peace and that we of our generation, who have gone through two terrible wars, shall at least be spared a third.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I do not wish to detain the House, particularly in view of the rather lengthy speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory). I do not know that I want to indulge in geographical excursions, or in historical references to Hannibal, or anything of that sort, but I do want to refer to the appeal what he made on behalf of Finland. It is important that we should remember that Finland is included in these Treaties. I know the great censure that Finland has come under because of her experience under German dominion during the war, but, nevertheless, there is a record of friendship, going back for many, years, between this country and Finland, and it is a pity that pressure has been brought to bear upon her to the extent that she is to be stripped of territories which are very important to her welfare. I will not say that there need be more said about it than that, because we are so much more responsible for equally bad arrangements in other parts of the world, where our will has had the opportunity of being expressed more clearly than has been possible in connection with the decision concerning Finland. It is interesting to note that in this Debate very little protest has been raised about Finland. It is an indication from the benches opposite that criticisms of Russia do not run so strongly on this occasion. However, I hope that there may be some reconsideration for Finland, particularly regarding Karelia and important economic areas which involve the prosperity of that country and this country.
But I will leave that to speak of another matter. I am sorry that in these Treaties we are now finally placing our ratification upon an arrangement made by which Italy takes over a very large section of old Austria. I know that this matter has been raised in previous Debates but we


ought, at the last moment, to voice our protest again on this question Italy is to have many things which, if she had her deserts, she ought not to have. But the handing over of this considerable area of the Tyrol is one of the worst blemishes in connection with these Peace Treaties. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that from an economic and political point of view that part of the Tyrol ought to have gone to Austria in whatever further settlement we might be able to secure. There is no shadow of doubt that the present arrangement has been made in order to secure payment to other parties in settlements regarding other areas in the world. To make it easier for the claims of Yugoslavia. and of France, in another direction, we have agreed to the dismemberment of an important part of old Austria to meet unjustifiable Italian claims. It is more than ever necessary to make this protest, because we are giving to that part of Italy people who ultimately swung in behind Mussolini and supported him in his advances. They will get encouragement again because of the action we have taken in this matter. In view of the long historical association between the Tyrol and Austria, and because of the necessity for helping Austria to get on her feet again, it is a great mistake that this arrangement should have been made.
I know that it has been said by the Foreign Secretary in our Debates that the Austrians have come to an agreement. Well, they have only agreed because they have been forced to agree. I cannot forget that on the day it was announced that we had decided to let that section of the Tyrol go under the control of Italy I met the President himself, when I had the privilege of being a member of the Parliamentary delegation that went to Austria at that time. I shall never forget the grief and protest which he expressed. Maybe he afterwards said other things, but I remember his first reactions and words of great sorrow, that Britain should have found it necessary to have made an arrangement by which that territory was to be handed over to Italian rule. I do not want to make foolish predictions, but I believe that for years to come we shall hear protests from people from that area, people who are, in every sense of the world, old Austrians Those protests will not redound to our good name. I wish it had been possible, in

these Treaties, to have come to a different decision in this matter.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. William Teeing: I am tempted to deal with every one of these Treaties, but perhaps it will be more appropriate if I confine myself to the subject of Finland, in view of the fact that I have just returned from there, with other Members of this House, within the last three or four days. The hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) was, I think, a little unfair in saying that because the question of Finland had not been raised on this side of the House we were not, perhaps, interested in her position. On the contrary, I think it was known by my friends on this side of the House that I wished to speak today on this subject, and it is not my fault if I was not able to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker before now, as I have been here since II o'clock. I fully agree that the question of Finland should be spoken of and discussed, just as much as any of the other countries referred to in these Treaties. To my mind the Finns have taken a very dignified attitude over the whole position. I was particularly struck with that, and I feel sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter) will agree with me when I say that nothing was said by anybody, while we were there, that could have embarrassed us, or made us realise that we were on the point of seeing a Treaty signed in this manner.
I am rather frightened, after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University of Belfast Professor Savory), to touch at all on historical matters, or even to try to contradict him on one point. But my hon. Friend said that Pola had evacuated something like 75,000 people. I would remind him that in Karelia there are just over 400,000 people, and that of that number of those given the option of staying under the new regime, or going into Finland, all have decided to go with the exception of 17. I made inquiries as to whether this was not exaggerated, and nobody would go beyond saying that there might be Too people left. What does that mean? It means that 400,000 people are going back into Finland, a country with a population of only some 3 million. For those, not only employment but housing must be found. That is a point of complaint which the Finns might take up. But


they are not complaining; all they are asking is that the Treaty should be ratified quickly, and I am glad that the Minister of State has said that he feels that this will happen within the next three or four weeks. I must say that in Finland the feeling is not quite so certain, people are not quite so happy. But they do beg that the Minister will use all his influence and the influence of Great Britain to get this Treaty ratified as soon as possible.
Finland, after all, as the hon. Member for Queen's University said, has not been in quite the same category as the other countries. We can, and should, admire the pluck and courage, even as an enemy, of an enemy who certainly, so far as we know, never did any really dirty tricks. I think Russia would feel the same—that Finland fought bravely, fought finely; and that, in these present days, when we are going to need strong European countries to pull the world round, it would be a good thing to let Finland get rid as quickly as possible of all her troubles.
I would ask the Minister of State to answer one or two points on Articles in that Treaty. There is Article 6 by which our representatives will have to be responsible for seeing that Finland takes all measures necesary to secure to all persons under Finnish jurisdiction, without distinction of race, sex, language, or religion, enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the freedoms of expression, of Press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion, and of public meetings. It is, possibly, not known to all Members of this House that there is still in Finland a secret police force. The Parliament of Finland is very anxious about the position of that secret police force, which is employed by the Minister of the Interior. The Parliament of Finland has actually gone so far as to withdraw funds from the Minister of the Interior for the secret police, in order to try to get rid of that force. Yet those secret police go on. Are they working for charity? I do not know. How are we going to find out? How can anybody find out? What is to be done to get rid of the secret police? They are a danger to the country. The husband of a British employee was beaten up only the other day for a variety of reasons. That is something that ought to be looked into. I wonder if the Minister of State would say anything about this police?
Then there is Article 9, about the apprehension and trial of persons accused of war crimes. I should like for one moment to turn to what the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said about the question of Yugoslavs being taken out of Italy. The Minister of State will, no doubt, have seen the letter that the hon. Member for Northampton and I and others wrote to "The Times" recently. Perhaps, he will tell us a little of what is being done by the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Fitzroy Maclean), who is at present working on that particular subject in Italy. Will he tell us what he is doing, and if he has been successful? In Finland the trials of people accused of war crimes have gone on, and I do not think anybody has been sentenced to more than a few years' imprisonment. There has been no capital punishment. It might be a good thing if that policy were followed out in other countries at the present time.
I should like to turn to Article 23, which deals with reparations and restitutions. That brings us to the question again of the 300 million dollars. It is not in cash that it is to be paid. It is to be paid in kind, and paid in kind to the full. At the present moment in Finland the people are in a very difficult and unhappy position. There are many commodities that will have to be sent to the Soviet Union, and in the Soviet Union it is now being said that when the goods arrive there they are not of the value attributed to them in Finland. If that is the case, how are the commission going to decide the goods' value? It is seriously felt in Finland that, by this Article, Russia is going to be able to ask for mom and more stuff, and that Russia will never be satisfied that the goods are of the right value. Furthermore, I cannot find where in this Treaty there is any reference to the fact that, if Finland does not deliver the goods within the period stated, the Soviet Union has the right to impose very serious and very strict measures.
I may be wrong in this, but I understand that in Finland they are in difficulties about being able to deliver the goods; and that one of the reasons why they are going to be unable, possibly, to deliver the goods is, that they cannot get from this country certain machines to put the things together in the way they must be put together to be sent to Russia. Which country is going to suffer


eventually? Is Russia going to ask us for the reparations, or is she to ask for them from Finland? But Finland cannot deliver the finished goods, unless we are able to deliver pieces of the goods to Finland; and in many cases we are not able to do that at the present moment. This also affects the position of our own exports, and in that way this is a most serious point.
In regard to Article 30, that deals with the question of international air traffic in Finnish territory. The hon. Member for Spelthorne will remember that we were held up and unable to leave Helsinki by air because of a priority right which is held at the present moment by Moscow. Anybody from Moscow has got the right to aircraft through Helsinki to Sweden. No matter how long in advance one books one's seat in Helsinki, if anybody from Moscow, on the actual morning of one's flight, chooses to go, it means that those in Helsinki have got to sit and wait and watch indefinitely. I hope that when the Treaty is ratified that will no longer be the fact. As regards our own aircraft, we are only allowed to take three passengers. We are not at present allowed to refuel at Helsinki. If we were allowed to refuel we could take more passengers, but we are not allowed to do so. That is on the airport of Helsinki which, according to this Article, is not supposed to discriminate between one country and another.
The Bill provides for appointments for the carrying out of the Treaties. The Financial Memorandum states that we cannot say now how much money will be required. Will it be required by the present Minister and his staff, or by permanent members of the commission in Finland? I may say, in passing, that the members of the commission in Finland, of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, are in most happy relations with the Soviet Mission. This is, unfortunately, not the case in some parts of the world, and it ought to be noted how very well the members of the two missions are getting on together at Helsinki. The work of the members of our mission means that they will have to travel about the country, and to spend more money; more money than they are spending at the moment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will note that there is a very strong feeling that, even at the present moment, the pay is

totally inadequate for the upkeep of the staff in Helsinki. What is going to happen when extra work has to be done, as it will have to be, according to this Bill, in seeing that the Treaty is carried out?
Extra expenses will be incurred. It has taken no less than two years for a decision to be reached on what are to be the allowances for one or two of the people there, and that has resulted in appalling overdrafts in the case of many of these men. Can we be assured by the Treasury that something will be done at once for these people, so that, when they arrange to send out extra men, they will know exactly what they get and what they can spend, and then the Treasury will realise the high cost of living in that country?
On this side of the House, and, I am sure, on the other side, too, it is felt that Finland has had a very unhappy record in the last few years, but, before that, Finland fought valiantly to try to get a good Constitution, and a democratic one, and a country which, next to New Zealand, was the first to give women the franchise, and that was over 40 years ago, is a country which has to be taken seriously among democratic countries. They took that step long before this country or the United States, and, in many ways, their Constitution is a broad and democratic one. The Finnish people are most dignified in their attitude about the Treaty. They know that Finland has to take some punishment for her mistakes, but Finland asks to be allowed to get on quickly with the job of putting the country in order and of becoming, once again, one of the most advanced countries in Northern Europe.

2.1 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I should not have intervened in this Debate if the question of Finland had not been raised by the last speaker. I had occasion to pay a very short visit to Helsinki last summer, and, from there, I went on to Leningrad. Probably, if one examines those two cities in conjunction, one can get a rather different approach to this problem of Finland, and to the question of reparations, and of the relations between the Soviet Union and Finland, than has so far been encountered in this Debate. During the Finnish-Russian war of 1940, newspapers in this country were full of stories of terrible air raids and vast destruction in Finland. I had occasion to go to Helsinki, though I


have not made the extensive visits which the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) has done. I found, during the whole of my perambulations, one building which had been destroyed by enemy action—the Soviet Embassy.

Mr. Teeling: In fairness, I think it should be said that it was definitely told us by Britishers and people of other countries, that much more damage had been done, and that it was quite amazing to see how much damage had been repaired and how quickly it had been done. If one went down to the docks, one found far more serious damage, and, of course, the worst damage of all was done in Karelia, and not in Helsinki.

Mr. J. Silverman: And, of course, Karelia has been taken over by the Soviet Union. As compared with most of those countries which have suffered damage, the amount of damage suffered by Finland, through enemy action, is comparatively small, and, moreover, the repair of this damage is proceeding very rapidly indeed. I went to Leningrad, and I am bound to say that the Russian attitude towards Finland which I found there was not quite that which has been indicated by the hon. Member for Brighton, certainly not in the Leningrad region. It is not correct to say that Finland was forced into this war. So far ac concerns the other four countries with whom treaties of peace are being discussed today, there was a certain amount of pressure which they found it difficult to resist. So far as Finland is concerned, there is no doubt that she voluntarily and deliberately entered into this war, and, in 1940 and 1941, she invited German troops to enter Finland, and, completely voluntarily, allowed these troops to deploy themselves on Finnish territory before the attack against the Soviet Union.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: And in 1919.

Mr. J. Silverman: Yes, and in 1919. I have seen some of the effects of that attack. The city of Leningrad, in consequence of Finnish intervention, was entirely surrounded. I do not think hon. Members understand the terrible ravages wrought in that particular area at that time—ravages which I have seen and with which there is no comparison with

anything either in this country or even in Germany. I think this is a matter which we ought to bear in mind.
When the city of Leningrad was surrounded for months on end, the only food available to its citizens was a quarter of a pound of dirty, grey, ersatz bread per day, and nothing else. The people boiled leather and tried to make soup of it, to extract some subsistence in order to live, but they died like flies. Men and women went out to their factories in the morning—production went on during all the days of the siege—and there they would drop down dead. I do not know the total number of people who died in that terrible siege, but it has been stated that the number is not less than 800,000, and it is as well that we should remember that There is destruction in the Leningrad area which is comparable with nothing that we have suffered here. It is possible, in an area extending 40 or 50 miles from Leningrad, to see nothing but complete destruction.
If Leningrad had fallen on account of Finnish intervention, as it might have done, the course and duration of the war might well have been different, and its effect, not merely on the Soviet Union but upon this country, might have been very serious. It seems to me that the terms of this Treaty, in so far as the Soviet Union and Finland are concerned, are extremely generous, and they are allowing the rapid and steady reconstruction of Finland. I think the hon Member for Brighton would see, when he went there, that this reconstruction is taking place. Throughout it all, the Soviet Government has adopted the attitude that Russia had to live side by side with that country and, therefore, they wanted to live side by side with a country which, in the first place, was not bankrupt or insolvent, but which was an independent country and reasonably prosperous, and they wanted to make sure that what had happened before should not happen again.
One of the points with regard to reparations which applies to Finland, while it does apply equally to all those other enemy countries, including Germany and Italy, is this. Reparations are not merely a question of revenge. It is not merely the extraction of wealth by one country from another, but the fact that the countries which were the aggressors in the war should not find themselves a short time hence in a happier and more


prosperous condition than the countries they have ravaged or helped to ravage. Obviously, if that came about it would be not only unjust and inequitable, but contrary to the things for which we have fought, and would in itself render another war more likely if the aggressor simply got away with it. So far as concerns Finland I believe that at the present moment, even though she is paying these reparations, a large part of her population is enjoying a higher standard of living than millions of people in countries which were allied to us and fought side by side with us, and who have suffered the ravages of the aggressors. Certainly this is the case in comparison with large tracts of territory in the Soviet Union, and with millions of people living in Yugoslavia today.
If countries like Finland were to get away with it completely, it would obviously be an encouragement to aggressors in future. As it is, this payment of reparations will make those concerned realise that the course of aggression does not pay. At the same time they will allow Finland to reconstruct her life upon a democratic basis which will enable her to live in peace with her neighbours, and I hope that this will be a link in the chain of peaceful relations which will conduce in the course of time to more peaceful conditions in the world at large.

2.12 p.m.

Mr. Pargiter: I should like to touch briefly on the economic aspect, because I have seen Finland at first hand recently, and I feel that crying over spilt milk will not help very much We must recognise that Finland's part in the second world war was really dictated by the events of the Russo-Finnish war. Although it is obvious that Finland was very unwise, it is a fact that she was very badly advised, exactly as she had been in the case of that former conflict. In fact, I understand that she was badly advised by everyone except the British, and it is rather interesting to note that Britain was the one country which warned her that Russia was in a very strong position and that she would be unwise to enter into a war with her. Unfortunately, the other advice prevailed and as I have indicated, it may be said that the events of the second world war followed automatically on those of the Russo-Finnish conflict. I do not think it is true to say that Finland deliberately invited

the Germans into her territory. They were there already, and there was not very much she could do about it.

Mr. J. Silverman: How did the Germans get there?

Mr. Pargiter: How did the Germans get anywhere? They got pretty well into France, Belgium and elsewhere, and in any case the fact remains that the second chain of events did follow on the first. I think that is an important consideration with regard to where Finland stands in this particular question. The important thing is how far the Peace Treaty is equitable and just, and what our attitude is towards it. My experience among the Finnish people was that they breathed a sigh of relief at the terms which had been fixed. They had expected that the terms would be much more severe. We gained this impression from many sections of the Finnish people, and I think it might be described as the general point of view. The terms are hard over a limited period, and that is the beauty of reparations in this case. They are for a fixed length of time, at the end of which Finland will be free to pursue her own economic reconstruction. In the meantime, there are certain aspects of this at which we ought to look. For example, Finnish exports and imports have played an important part in British economy in the past, and I think that it is vital that they should do so in the future. Finnish economy is based very largely on timber, and it is, perhaps, unfortunate that the country's waterway system happens to lead to Karelia, a port which is no longer a part of Finland but comes within Russia.
Finland will thus have the choice of using Russian ports and facilities and paying for them, or, alternatively, of finding new channels of communication. Incidentally, these channels of communication are vital for timber. We can supply certain of the things Finland needs eventually. She has to pay reparations in ships, and she has no steel. She has to get steel from somewhere and perhaps we could let her have it in return for timber. It will, however, be some time before Finland can build a reasonable economy, although I think that if we can do anything at all to help we should do so. This is not a question of Finland's part in past history, but of how we can build the countries of Europe into a comity of


nations which will live together happily and peacefully trading one with the other.
Contrary to what has been said, I should not agree that the standard of living in Finland is very good. In fact, I should have said that it is very poor. I believe that the sugar ration, for example, is only half a pound a month. I would mention here—in case it falls upon receptive ears—that if a person smokes in Finland he or she receives only half the sugar ration. That seems to be a possible means of controlling undesirable expenditure.

Mr. Montague: What about drink?

Mr. Pargiter: The State holds a monopoly, although I understand that there is a very flourishing black market. Each person is allowed one bottle of drink a day—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I do not think that the Treaties cover the question of drink.

Mr. Pargiter: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was rather carried away and thought that my hon. Friend wanted to know something about alcohol. As I have been indicating, I think it is important that the Treaty should be ratified as soon as possible. The Finnish people are very anxious about this because they really want to get down to rebuilding. I hope that our own Overseas Trade Department will look very carefully at what can be done to help to rehabilitate Finland with a view to bringing us those very much needed supplies which Finland can provide for the benefit of this country.
At this point I should like to touch upon the question which has been raised with regard to the secret police. Frankly, I do not think the secret police are such an important body as might have been implied. There is a dual police system, and I would put it at that rather than call it a secret police, although it is true that it is controlled by the Minister of the Interior and that Parliament has not very much control over it. In any case, there is absolute freedom of speech so far as we are able to judge. Every person appeared to be able to speak freely and there was no evidence at all of Russian control in the city of Helsinki. We were perfectly free to go where we liked and we took the

fullest advantage of the fact. It has been said that Russian control—so far as they are the senior members of the Control Commission—has been absolutely correct. That is the keynote of this treaty. It is a correct treaty which we shall ratify, I hope, without any misgivings at all as being reasonable and fair to all concerned.

2.20 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is a great advantage to be a Member of this House because in the course of a Debate of this sort one is able to encounter those who have had every experience under the sun, and I think this Debate is no disappointment in that respect. I regret I cannot add to the descriptions of foreign countries which have been given in the course of the Debate because, unfortunately, I have not been able to leave my own country, but I will turn my attention to the Bill which I have had an opportunity of studying. I also would like to add that those who read the Treaty discussions after the last war will not be disappointed, because on that occasion the Chair, quite rightly, allowed a wide discussion to those who were speaking, and the Debate was extremely wide. If I may compliment this Debate, I can only say that it has gone wider still, due largely to the powerful help of my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory).
Reverting to the Bill, I presume the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State will seek the leave of the House to reply. I use that expression because it is becoming more and more usual for the Government to rely upon one Minister to take charge of an important Bill, and it is strictly against the Rules and precedents of the House that a person should speak twice on the Second Reading of a Bill. There is no one we would rather hear than the right hon. Gentleman, so this remark has no personal significance whatever, but it indicates that the Government are not attaching sufficient importance to this Bill, in that they cannot fortify the right hon. Gentleman either with the Under-Secretary from his own Department, who may well be away—and if so, we would like to hear—or with some other and more powerful Minister who could help him in the transactions which he is facing today in this Parliament.

Mr. S. Silverman: There are not many hon. Members waiting to hear him.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) has not been in the House the whole time. If he had been he would have seen who had been present and who had taken part in this Debate. If the right hon. Gentleman obtains permission of the House to speak again in this Second Reading Debate, we would like him to reply to one or two points.
I want first to stress the constitutional points which are the most important in this Bill. We would like to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman has any answer to the point put by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pick-thorn) as to whether, in the Committee stage, he would substitute for "His Majesty" in Clause 1 (1), "One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State." I think there is a very important point here. It is not so much that the power of Parliament is removed, because although there is a negative procedure laid down for Orders in Council under this Bill, it will be possible for Parliament to adopt the same difficult, and, at times, otiose procedure of a Prayer at a late hour at night, if hon. Members wish to challenge any of these Orders. But under the Bill as it is drafted, there is no doubt that the House, as the guardians of the citizens of this country, has a right to say that unless one of His Majesty's Ministers is substituted for His Majesty himself, the ordinary citizen has no right in the courts if aggrieved or offended by Orders prescribed in this Bill.
There is an extension of the use of the Prerogative, which has precedent, as we know, in that it was used in the last war, but this is a matter on which no Government ought lightly to embark. I hope we shall have from the right hon. Gentleman an explanation and an undertaking that when we consider this Bill in Committee he will give attention to what we have put down on the Order Paper. Therefore, I would like to give notice that we shall raise points of this sort on the Committee stage, and that if we give this Bill a Second Reading it does not mean that we are satisfied with the constitutional position as it is stated here. This is very unusual for an Act of Parliament, and undesirable, and I do not believe it is absolutely necessary even in questions concerning foreign policy.
The other point I want to stress is that I think it is unreasonable that we should

not have the affirmative method of procedure under Orders in Council. It ought to be possible for that to be substituted for this negative procedure which appears in the second page of the Bill, and when we enter the Committee stage we intend to put down an Amendment proposing that there shall be the affirmative procedure. These two points are of considerable importance, and they are rendered all the more important, because, so far, we have not been able to extract from the Government very much information about the powers that are being assumed by the Government under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman did his best, but many points have been put from this side of the House and we should like him to give us a clearer definition, not so much about action which is necessary under Orders, of which he gave instances, and which I took down while he was speaking, but of the other phrases in the Bill, namely, the type of appointments that it is proposed His Majesty shall make, and such offices as His Majesty shall create. These words are to be found, as the Minister of State knows, in Clause 1 (1). I hope, therefore, before we give a Second Reading to the Bill, we may have some indication of its scope and of the result of its particular form of drafting. It would also be useful to know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman can give some indication of the charges under the Bill, because the Financial Memorandum is couched in extremely general terms, and if we had some indication of the expenses, we might have some knowledge of the extent to which appointments and offices would be created or made.
Coming to the Peace Treaties themselves, I think we will all agree that certain speeches that have been made in this Debate have been very valuable. I have already commented upon the excellent intervention of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University, and I would like to make special reference to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) and, in particular, his references to the Italian Treaty, which seemed to me to be couched in most moderate language, and to give a very balanced answer to the genuine speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). I myself come down on the side of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor, and I would like to ask a specific question about


developments which nave arisen out of the Italian Treaty, and which are, to some extent, affected by this Bill, because powers taken under this Bill may be necessary to implement decisions taken. I refer to the recent visit of the Italian Financial Delegation and their efforts to secure terms which they can reasonably meet and honour. If the right hon. Gentleman could give me any indication of the success of these negotiations, and could further illustrate his point by describing any action which arises out of the conclusions reached, it would enable us not only to have useful information but also to tie up this Bill with the procedure arising out of the Italian Treaty which has recently been undertaken by the Financial Delegation.
Arising out of the Italian Treaty, I would also like to press for more information about action which will have to be taken under this Bill in regard to Trieste, and, in particular, in regard to the appointent of the International Commission, and progress generally in that area—for example, what types of appointments and what types of offices might come under this Bill in connection with the development of our policy for Trieste. I thought the question of Italian reparaations was given a rather one-sided interpretation by the hon. Member for Stoke, and I think it is valuable at this stage to stress the generosity of the attitude deliberately adopted in this connection by the United States of America and ourselves; and, although it was right for the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor to say that there was a certain other aspect of our policy in this regard, at the same time these facts should not be forgotten. I would like to reinforce what has been said also in the course of this Debate, that it is most important that though we may all rightly and with fervour condemn, like the hon. Member for Stoke, the early disgraceful action of Italy and of her late rulers, at the same time we should attempt to encourage the Italians to join with us in the general building up of peace in the Mediterranean area. That is why I attach so much importance to obtaining from the right hon. Gentleman some statement on the negotiations surrounding the visit of the members of the Italian Financial Delegation to this country.
I must say a word on one aspect of the Treaties to which I referred in my speech

following the Foreign Secretary on 27th February. I then asked what progress was likely to be made with demilitarisation of the Graeco-Bulgarian frontier. I pointed out at that time how wrong it was that Greece had been given no concession in connection with the Thracian uplands. It was reported in my speech as the "Thracian Islands," which rendered it almost incomprehensible. Therefore, I take this opportunity of saying what I meant to say, and, I hope, did say. This matter has been raised in the course of this Debate, and I really must answer, with some determination from this side of the House, suggestions made from hon. Members opposite that either Greece or Finland are, themselves, menaces to international peace. The most preposterous picture has been painted of the Greek militarists prowling over the plains of Thrace with a view to descending upon them and conquering the whole of the North, and presumably the East, of Europe and Asia. Such a picture is, to our minds, perfectly ridiculous. It is similarly perfectly ridiculous, so to speak, as recent speakers did, about Finland, and to suggest that Finland, in herself, or the Finnish people, is necessarily of very aggressive character.
We take the view that these Treaties themselves relate, for the most part, to very small nations. It is a patent and open fact that some of these nations have backed the wrong horse in the late titanic struggle. They may have backed it through wrong leadership, or through a sort of perverted sense of policy, which I could associate with at least one of the countries concerned. Whatever be the truth of the matter, they are small countries. The Treaties have in them flimsy contents; that is to say, some of the frontiers created are highly artificial; the borderline, therefore, between peace and unrest on these borders and the difficulties of payment or repayment of reparations will be very great indeed; economies will be nearly balanced or nearly unbalanced, and in many cases, alas, the balance will come down on the wrong side. Therefore, in the face of these five Treaties, we cannot sit back and say that everything is right in the world. But we can say this. At one time it appeared that these Treaties would not be concluded, in face of great obstruction and great difficulty in international assemblies. These Treaties have been concluded; a first stage has been taken along the road towards a general


international settlement. The major Treaties are now being debated in Moscow, and we trust that the Austrian Treaty, the Germany Treaty, and eventually the Japanese Treaty, not very far away, will follow upon the conclusion of these Treaties, We on this side of the House are satisfied that a Bill of some sort is necessary, and, subject to our right to criticise it in Committee, we will wish to give it a Second Reading.

2.33 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I most humbly ask the permission of the House to speak again. I would not so presume if it were not that, as the House is aware, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is in Moscow, and, as I hope the House is also aware, the Under-Secretary of State is engaged, perhaps not in such dramatic business but in no less substantial business, with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in New York. I hope, therefore, the House will grant me the indulgence for which I ask.
However, even with that permission which the House so generously gives me, I do not mean to embark upon the exotic and extensive waters on which we have sailed today, mainly because much of that interest which the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) brought, with his erudition and his zeal, is somewhat academic. It is perfectly proper for it to be discussed, and it is essential, as so many hon. Members have advanced, that we should inquire upon the detailed action which may follow upon this Bill. But there are many subjects already defined in Treaties to which we have given our signature, and which could not, therefore, be upset at this stage. The questions divided themselves fairly reasonably into what I might call legal and constitutional questions, and some political issues, to which I will attempt to give answers.
As to the legal and constitutional questions referred to by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who opened the Debate, and by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who closed the Debate, I confess that the slight time for research which I have had on the Front Bench has not sustained the thesis which I offered to the senior Burgess for Cambridge University. I do not mean that I am certain I am wrong—

Mr. Pickthorn: That is too much for a Scotsman.

Mr. McNeil: It is not too much for a Scotsman, but a Scotsman takes as much care in admitting when he is wrong as asserting when he is right. Therefore, I should like time to look at that point. However, the maximum that can be safely said is, that we are not here setting any precedent, and that we follow very carefully the behaviour set forth in the 1919 Act. Therefore, I am reluctant to give some of the assurances for which I have been asked. We will not seek any additional powers. When I say "additional powers," I mean that we will not seek power under an Order, if there is any reason to believe that we already have that power. Those additional powers which we may have to seek will follow very closely upon the experience of the last Act. As far as I am aware, there was no unsatisfactory consequence as a result of those additional powers, following the last Act.
The second point about which I was asked was whether we would agree that there should be an affirmative check instead of a negative check. Naturally, I promise to consider that with the appropriate Departments, and, I think, particularly with the Leader of the House and the Whips of the House. While it is true, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden suggested, that the immediate Orders which may be needed are already in draft, it is proper that I should say they are very limited. The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I could give any indications of such appointments and offices as might be necessary. It may be true that such an appointment as the membership of the International Commission for the Free Port might fall under this. But my impression is, from conversations we had while the Bill was in draft, that our existing powers satisfy that, and, in fact, I do not anticipate we will have to make any appointments or offices under this Bill.
The only subjects about which I know are those to which I have already drawn the attention of the House: the rights relating to properties of British subjects, and of Allied nationalities; the rights of ex-enemy subjects to property in this country which, for one reason or another, have been in suspense; and the restitution of contractual and other rights,


relating to such matters as patents. These are the only subjects which we contemplate at this time. Therefore, while I promise that I will, of course, consider what could be done, I am reluctant to agree that I should recommend that the Government should amend this Clause to bring in an affirmative check. But this much I think I ought to recommend to the Government, in view of the very serious argument offered by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University and the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), who made the point about the nationality of former British women married to such ex-enemy aliens as Hungarians. We will consider that point, and I will be delighted to accept the proper Amendment about the comma brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Cambridge University and insert it in the first page of the Bill.
I should be rather offhand if I did not listen to the arguments offered in support of the fact that we may bring about substantial changes to British law. I hope, even though my membership of this House is still very limited, I will never disregard the contributions made even when they come from the Opposition. Therefore, while I would not recommend to the Government that we should offer an affirmative check, I think I should recommend that if any order seems substantially to affect existing British law, or if it is suggested to us from the Opposition that such a substantial change may be effected, it should be up to the Government to afford full opportunity for Debate, and I have little doubt that the Government will adopt that view. Those I think are all the substantial legal points that were put to me.
Turning now—I have tried to group the subjects—to points relating to the operation of the Bill, may I say that the Danubian Conference about which I was asked, the Conciliation Commission, the appointment of a representative to the International Free Port Commission, and the exchange of Czech and Hungarian populations, are all subjects upon which no action is called for until the Treaties are ratified. There is therefore nothing I can say on them at this time, except that we have not yet selected a United Kingdom representative for the Free Port Commission about which I was asked by the hon. and gallant

Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe). That cannot take place until the governor has been appointed, and I think it not inappropriate to remind the House that the governor is appointed by the Security Council. We are getting near the time when we hope that the governor will have much work to do, and, I therefore trust that the Security Council and the appropriate offices of the United Nations will quickly find time to discuss the subject and make an appointment.
Then there were a number of questions relating to assets and currencies. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) drew our attention to difficulties in costing between Italy and Britain at present. The solution of course is the one to which he refers; once the Treaty is ratified, Italy can adhere to Bretton Woods and these matters will then he adjusted. There were questions about Italian assets in Britain from hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor, whose speech was, I thought, a most balanced and helpful one. I have a little difficulty in saying much about this; conversations which have been going on with the Italian financial delegation are not yet concluded—indeed, I hope to take part in a further meeting at 5 o'clock this afternoon—and I think it would not be inaccurate to say that progress has been made and that both sides have displayed a tolerant and fairly generous attitude. Political difficulties as well as economic ones are involved in this question, and the economic ones have meant that we could not be as generous as we might have been in other circumstances, but I have high hopes that a satisfactory arrangement will be made in the near future.
I was also asked about the Italian warships. It is true that these conversations are advancing and that they are not so very far from conclusion, but the House will I am sure understand that it would be highly inappropriate for me to give any specific details about those conversations in the meantime. Then I was asked by two speakers about allied property in Roumania, particularly by the hon. Gentleman who led for the other side. I think there is hardly time to go into details about Article 24, to which reference was made. It is true that that Article does not give us everything we wanted in relation to the protection and restitution of the property of British individuals and


corporations in Roumania, but I think it can be contended that it gave us a substantial degree of satisfaction. The hon. Gentleman, when he questioned me on this subject, was very delicate and very appreciative of our difficulties and I am grateful, but I imagine that what he was really referring to was the difficulty about fixing prices in relation to British property which has been and is still being disposed of. I think the most I can say is that we pressed very hard for the conciliation machinery, which I think comes under Article 33, and it is not an unsatisfactory position. Perhaps the procedure there would take a good deal of time but it is a safeguard which goes a long way to meet our difficulty.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Does not the conciliation machinery come under Article 32?

Mr. McNeil: I made a note at the time the light hon. Gentleman was speaking, but I sometimes have difficulty with my own writing. It is the Article which provides for a reference to a commission, then to the Council of Ambassadors, and then, if satisfaction is not secured, to an arbiter to be appointed by the Secretary-General.

Mr. Butler: Both Articles refer to conciliation.

Mr. McNeil: Thank you. Then there is the question of the withdrawal of Soviet troops. Articles 21 and 22 of the Treaty govern this matter, and provide that Soviet troops will be withdrawn within co days, except for line of communication troops. I think that some injustice was done here by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Windsor in his criticism of the Soviet Union. I dare say it is quite true that the shortest route between Vienna and the Soviet territory is through Czechoslovakia, but it is quite understandable that the Soviet Union, which would be moving much bulk traffic, would want to take advantage of the Danube. I do not think that is unfair at all. However, the Secretary of State has not at any time sought to hide his anxiety to get all troops, not only Soviet troops, out of those territories, and in Moscow at present His Majesty's Government are urging that the Austrian Treaty should be concluded as speedily as possible. That is the only governing clause; once the Treaty is ratified, it is provided that Soviet troops shall be withdrawn

except for line of communication troops, and no one has any right to doubt that that provision will be followed as soon as the Treaty is ratified.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information about how many Soviet troops are occupied in guarding the line of communication?

Mr. McNeil: I regret that I cannot do so without notice, but I think I ought to add that when we made an examination some little time ago, following a slightly controversial affirmation from the benches opposite, we were not dissatisfied that there was any unreasonable amount of troops involved.
On the question of the demilitarisation of the Greek-Bulgarian frontier, this Clause does not become operative until after the ratification of the Treaty. I meant to say much earlier that I think that the hon. Member for Queen's University was quite just when he accused us of discourteous and unthoughtful conduct in not providing maps to go along with the Treaties and I will see what can be done to remedy that. Anyone who has looked at this problem even without having travelled there—and I have not been in that quarter—will recognise that the demilitarisation Clause is not a very great advance, and the more one reads it the less substance one can find in it. It only provides in time, that there shall be no military emplacement from which artillery can be directed into Greece. If incursions and trouble are to be prevented on this frontier, then international action of some kind will be needed, and His Majesty's Government hope fervently that the United Nations Commission will make some recommendation towards that end. I was asked how far that work had proceeded. I understand that the Commission are very near the point where they will begin drafting but when they will complete that drafting I cannot say.
The exchange of nationals between Italy and Yugoslavia is a subject which has concerned Members on all sides of the House. May I say very firmly that the Clause in the Treaty refers only to the surrender of persons against whom a prima facie case has been established. As signatories to the Treaty, at Paris, we made it quite plain that we would only yield to the most literal interpretation of that Clause. As for the rest of those who


comprise the great bulk of these people, His Majesty's Government have been most conscious of their obligations and will not seek to escape from them. I was asked about the Commission headed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Maclean). Progress there has not been unsubstantial, and we hope shortly to be able to place before the affected peoples and the affected Governments what I think are very reasonable proposals which will mean that these Yugoslavs are not in any danger at all. Perhaps the House will not press me too hard for details. I am not seeking to escape revealing the details, but I plead that as we are primarily concerned with those people, I should not be pressed too hard for them.

Mr. Pickthorn: I would not for the world endeavour to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman who is being so very helpful. I think he is doing his best for us, and if he cannot answer this question I shall not be hurt. The question of which I am a little afraid is this: Is there a risk that the ratification of these Treaties will make it more difficult for Italy, e.g., to help all the persons who may be claimed by some other Government—for example, Yugoslavia—as their nationals? Are we going to make it more difficult for His Majesty's Government to hold up the hands of the Italian Government by letting these Treaties go? If so, perhaps we ought to do it, but I think we ought to be conscious of it. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that question should not be put at such short notice, I shall quite understand, but if he can give us an answer I shall be grateful.

Mr. McNeil: I think that that is a fair question and I think I can answer it. In our opinion, the ratification of the Treaty would not add to the legal embarrassment of the Italian Government. Our interpretation is that the Clause is so narrowly drawn that only the people who are actual criminals or collaborators can be cited under it. On the other hand, I agree that while the legal position may be very clear, the political position of this Italian Government might be difficult, and in our proposals we have not lost sight of the political difficulties of the Italian Government in such a situation and, much more important, the very real dangers that might be visited upon some of these Yugo-

slays as a result of the political difficulties of the Italian Government. I hope that, with good will on the part of the other Government concerned, we may find a satisfactory way out of it. I repeat that we are not seeking any excuse. We have not lost sight of our obligation towards these people. nor will we seek to escape from it.
The Debate opened with quite a fierce but very reasonable discussion as to how real were the entities affected by the Treaty. I think this is an important political question, and I think that I ought to say I was a little puzzled by one hon. Member referring to four Powers. I agree with every speaker who has referred to the great nobility, dignity and sense of justice which the Finnish Government have brought to the discharge of their obligations. It is well known that His Majesty's Government are anxious to help them in their difficulties and perhaps at this stage I could say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) that it is equally known that His Majesty's Government are anxious to extend their trading relations, on conditions of equity, to all nations in Europe and we are not discriminating in any way. There may not be any doubt about the valid titles of the Finnish, Italian or Hungarian Governments, but it is true that we have never been satisfied with the title of the Roumanian or Bulgarian Governments and His Majesty's Government have made that plain, but as the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor asks, what is suggested? Are we not to have any relations, or are we to withdraw our representatives? That is not the way, but we must use the best instruments which lie to our hands in the hope that conditions and titles in these Governments will improve, and in the hope that the conditions relating to human rights, as clearly laid down inside the Treaties, will be increasingly observed.
We were asked upon which principle, it there was a principle, we had approached reparations. We did take a principle to the process. We tried to assess claims, and we tried to secure that where harm had been done reparations should be made, but I would be thoroughly dishonest if I pretended that we managed to sustain that principle during all the meetings. We did not. Horse trading went on throughout the whole business. I hope


an examination of the Treaties will persuade the House that we did not lose sight of our principles in this business, and that is one of the reasons why the difference in our treatment of reparations can be distinguished. At all stages, we we made it plain that we thought reparations were being pitched too high, but certainly reparations were fixed at the time of the Armistice. Though we might have delayed the conclusion of the Treaties by a continuing process, we would not have been assisting the process by which machinery and materials of war were already being taken away as part of reparations. Therefore, while we sought at every stage to modify the reparations, we felt that despite these very clear improvements, we had better proceed as quickly as possible towards the most satisfactory treaty that we could get.
Perhaps the most direct, and certainly the most sincere, speech in the Debate was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). He had one substantial misconception. He seemed to think that such reparations as had been agreed upon inside the Italian Treaty were being met at the cost of the British taxpayer and, I thought he said, the American taxpayer. That is not so. These two countries said from the beginning that reparations would be very limited if we were to depend upon the resources of the Italian nation. We put forward a principle, which has been substantially observed, that reparations will only accrue by the increased value given by Italian labour to raw materials supplied by the claimant countries. I am trying to condense my remarks and I hope it is clear what that means. It means that the Soviet put in materials, Italy does work upon them, and reparations are taken from current production in that fashion. The hon. Gentleman went further and recalled, quite properly, the substantial injury that we had suffered at Italy's hands. He asked, why should we not exact reparations from Italy? The answer is a nasty one. It is because reparations are not there.
When we opened this Debate the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University, quite kindly, referred to my assumption that he had read the Parliamentary Debates. I am fairly certain that he has. It is a safeguard which most of us take. They were very

interesting Debates. He will find there a savage speech—not nearly such a good and sincere one as was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke—upon the subject of reparations at the end of the last war. This country then made great mistakes on this subject. I hope that we have escaped from making similar mistakes this time. I suspect that some of the other belligerents have not escaped. I hope I am wrong in my anticipation, but I think that many of the reparation Clauses will prove pretty empty satisfaction to the countries concerned. At any rate, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke will agree—in fact he has said so in this House—that if vengeance means that we are to visit a low standard upon someone else, no country has any right to expect that they will escape the consequences, for their own people, of imposing that standard. That is true in Italy. None of us will seek to excuse the faults of Italy but none of us can pretend that the economic condition of Italy is something which does not have its consequence for us. Therefore, we thought that we brought a sense of realism to that Treaty in our attitude towards Italian reparations. We were not, in our generosity, unmindful of our own needs, both politically and economically. As long as we can in consonance with security reasons secure the restoration of sound economies, we will seek to do these things, as we did seek to do these things in the Treaties from which the necessity for this will arise.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Michael Stewart.]

Orders of the Day — TREATIES OF PEACE (ITALY, ROUMANIA, BULGARIA, HUNGARY AND FINLAND) [Money]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69. (King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair.]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for carrying into effect Treaties of Peace betwen His Majesty and certain other Powers, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of any Minister


incurred in carrying out the Treaties specified in the said Act of the present Session."—[Mr. McNeil.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.8 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is sufficiently self-explanatory to need very little commendation from me on its Second Reading. It provides for the acquisition, either by agreement or compulsorily, of the site of the old Westminster Hospital opposite the Abbey, and also for certain modifications in the restrictions that exist on the use of that site which were designed originally to protect neighbouring buildings. It is proposed to demolish the old hospital buildings which are now used as a hostel for troops, and also to demolish the old Stationery Office buildings on the adjoining site. It is the fact that they are being demolished that leads to the omission of certain restrictions upon the use of the sites. Then upon the combined site it is proposed to build a new Colonial Office.
Hon. Members will probably know that the office accommodation which exists in Downing Street for the Colonial Office has long been totally inadequate to the expanded services of that Department, and that the Colonial Office staffs are now scattered in various premises, much to their inconvenience. When the Colonial Office moved into their present buildings in 1875 their staff, I am told, numbered 40. At the present moment it is 1,084. It is hoped to erect a new building on this fine site which will be worthy of our Colonial Empire. When the new Westminster Hospital was built, the hospital sold their site to a purchaser, who proposed to develop it for commercial offices, but I am sure that it will be generally felt on both sides of the House, that the development of that site should take place in accordance with the principles laid down in the County of London plan, and that it should be used for definitely national purposes. The Bill is needed in order that the Ministry of Works may be given the powers, which it has not at

the present moment, of compulsory purchase and, as I have said, it provides for certain modifications of restrictions on the development of the site which were necessary when it was proposed to develop the hospital site on its own but are not necessary now, for instance, restrictions upon the height of the new building on its Northern side. Those are not now necessary because we shall use the site of the Stationery Office as well, but the original restrictions are still kept so far as the height on the other sides of the development are concerned.
There is also here a Clause which is to exempt the site from the provisions of the London Building Acts. That is done because, in the normal way, Government Departments are not subject to those Acts; the Crown is not bound by them, and we think it would be wrong to create a precedent by allowing that to happen in this particular case. However, the House may be sure that the Government will, in the development of the site, proceed in consultation with the planning authority as well as with the Royal Fine Art Commission. I think that has covered the main points that arise in this Bill, and I move, therefore, that it be read a Second time.

3.13 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: We on this side of the House do not oppose this Bill; in fact we agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a site upon which should be erected a building, having regard to the importance of the site and its position, which is used for national purposes. Let me remind the House about the site. It will be remembered that only recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government have agreed to contribute £100,000 to the sums already provided through the generosity of the Middlesex County Council, the Westminster City Council, the London County Council and the Pilgrim Trust in order that the Canning site may be preserved as an open space, and that we may be able to improve Parliament Square. The House will also remember that the Abingdon Street site has been chosen for the memorial to King George V, and when one remembers the Abbey and this building, and the sentiment attaching to this part of London, we really have now an opportunity, if we take it, of making this area something which is really worthy to be the heart of an Empire.
The site, the acquisition by the Government of which we are discussing, is an important part of this area. Everybody knows its close proximity to the Abbey, and our concern is that when a building is erected here, it should be something really worthy of the position which it is to occupy. I have one or two observations to make about that, and a question or two to ask, and, if they are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I know that several of my hon. Friends have points to put, not only with regard to the building itself but with regard to the use to which it may be put.
I think the question of the design of the building so important that the right hon. Gentleman should select one of our finest architects, or possibly put the design out to a number of architects, and let public opinion play around the various designs. He has already said that the Royal Fine Art Commission should be brought in. What I wish to impress on him is that this matter should not be treated, as are buildings which go up in various parts of the country, as just a matter for the Ministry of Works. This goes beyond that, and one of the finest architects the country can produce should be employed.
We think it wholly proper that this building should be used for Colonial Office purposes, but I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Westminster Hospital authorities found the actual site was very noisy. We should consider whether the actual position is suitable for offices where people can work in conditions of comfort, at any rate on the side which faces the Broadway. I do not want to trespass on what my hon. Friends may wish to say, but there are questions to be considered in that regard.
Another matter on which I should like some information relates to the fact that the Bill takes power to acquire the site by compulsion or agreement. Have any negotiations gone on yet, and is it likely that the site will be acquired by agreement, or does the Minister anticipate that he will have to use compulsory powers? If would appear from the Bill that the site is to be acquired at something like the 1939 valuation. I would like some information on that. There will be other opportunities at later stages to discuss different points, but Is conclude, as I began, by saying that we on this side of the House, and I believe on all sides, are

concerned that when the time comes to erect a building on this site it should be something completely worthy of the great position it is to occupy.

3.19 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting what has been said about the desirability, in this case, of building a structure which will be a credit to ourselves, and be worthy of the Empire, at the very heart of which it will lie. In order that that may come to pass, it seems not only desirable to employ the best architect we can obtain, nor is reference to the Fine Art Commission enough. The Fine Art Commission have no executive powers, but only advisory powers, and the architect alone may not find it possible to provide for us what he himself might desire. In other countries, particularly Sweden, it is customary to use the most talented groups of people, sculptors and painters, in conjunction with the architect in planning the structure of the building, in order to see that when completed it reflects the feelings, the mood, ideals and aspirations of the people in that country, or that city. I would like the Minister to give as an assurance that we shall use a similar technique here. Our buildings, in the past 100 years, have not always been as beautiful as they might have been. They have been of no true significance whatever, and they have not offered any particular joy to the eye of the beholder. Certainly, artists have not been called in to help to beautify buildings internally or externally; and it would be reasonable to say that the external frigidity of most buildings has been matched by their internal barrenness of design. Where we should have idealistic conceptions we have been given miserable abortions.
Today, in view of the fact that much of Britain has to be rebuilt in our lifetime, and that of our children, we must match our needs with the desires of the people, if we are to build better. I think that most of us must agree, and I hope the Minister will agree, that it is this particular feature we must cater for—the ever-growing appreciation of the need for more beauty in our daily lives. It is of no use to offer us utilitarian buildings, or whatever they may be called. If we allow posterity to accuse us of shoddiness in our public buildings, I think that we should be for ever ashamed. At this time, when it is


said that we must cater for the age of the common man, let us cater for "Everyman."
In the past, private patronage has been thought to be enough to ensure that buildings of some beauty might be embellished. Whether it was done by prince or duke, or by the Church, which did magnificent work, or by the private patronage of the eighteenth century landowner, I think we must agree that it was not satisfactory in all respects. I am sure that all of us would assent to the view that we might have had more Shakespeare and Milton if they had not had to tout and cadge, during so much of their lives, for a living. It is hardly conceivable that Rembrandt would have died a drunkard's death if it had not been that he thought of himself as being as important as some of his burgher patrons. Wouverman, one of the greatest landscape painters the World knew, who showed us how to paint skies, died in a pauper house. This is not something to be thought of with pride. When one of the greatest of our painters, Innis, the greatest since Bonnington's time, died as a young man of 28, if I had been called upon to write his death certificate, I should have written, "Death from pulmonary tuberculosis, due to poverty and disregard by the society in which he lived."
If we are to replace what can no longer be afforded by private patronage, thanks to the remarkable work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who sees that there is little private income available for the purchase of works of art, as compared with the eighteenth century, then we must urge that a Minister of State should take the place of the private individual and offer us that patronage. I am told that there are scarcely six large-scale collectors in the country, and that all of them live in the metropolitan area. There are barely 700 painters and sculptors in the country who earn £500 a year gross. This figure includes our fashionable portrait painters. I will say of them little, except that one can recognise their sitters by their faces, and not much more.
I propose to the Minister, therefore—and I hope he will consider it—that out of this sum of money of £1,850,000 for the cost of the building, he should allocate a minimum of two per cent., not necessarily by way of addition, if that

means fresh legislation, but by way of subtraction, set aside £50,000, and say, "This shall be spent on fine art alone in conjunction with the advice given by the architect—"—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the future of fine art on this Bill. We cannot enter into that subject now.

Dr. Stross: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, I accept your Ruling; but as this is the last part of what I have to say, I hope that you will consider that I am in Order for the next two minutes. I suggest that, in respect of this particular building on this particular site, £50,000 out of the money allotted for the project should be allotted for the employment of sculptors, painters and wood carvers, in conjunction with the architect to see that the design of this building shall be suitable, something of which we may be proud, something of which those who see it at any time in the future may say, that it is a reflection of our people, and a true symbol of our Commonwealth.
May I remind my right hon. Friend that in 1910 there was a young man named Rupert Brooke discussing this very thing in his university? He was asking for money—£500,000 a year—for this very sort of thing, and he said—I shall quote only one or two sentences
I need not tell students of modem budgets what a drop this is. If anyone wants to realise its insignificance, let him consider the modern expenditure on armaments.
Half a million pounds to secure the arts in Britain. Of course, he had in mind the arts associated with our great public buildings, and he said:
I appeal, therefore, to my friends the politicians in this Society, to see that this is done. If there is any politician present here is his chance.
There was another young man present who has become a politician since. He is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this particular Government. He sat in the room at that time when Rupert Brooke made that appeal. It is for his memory, and for the memory of all those who have lived and died, and who were the most sensitive folk of our nation, that I appeal to the Minister to accede to my request.

3.27 p.m.

Mr. Howard: I take it that I need not ask


for your Ruling, Sir, as to whether I should be in Order in following the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) in a discussion as to who was, in fact, the best painter of landscapes or the best painter of skies. Therefore, I must ask the indulgence of the House if I come down to earth with somewhat of a bump and come straight to this Bill. I intervene for two purposes only. The first is to express my delight that the Minister has made it known that he is prepared to consult the Royal Fine Art Commission and the planning authority at every stage before this building is planned or erected. I intervene to ask him to extend his consultations one stage further and to give an assurance to this House that he will also consult the highways authority. He will appreciate that, in the planning of the streets in this area, points may arise which will affect the building. I anticipate that he will probably reply that he will automatically do that, but it would be a source of satisfaction if he would give an assurance that he will, in fact, do so. We are all aware of the historic nature of this site, and no words of mine could add any embellishments to the site itself.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Minister said he hoped that the buildings which would arise on this site would be worthy of the Colonial Empire. They ought to be worthy, also, of what is regarded as the centre of Empire, and since they will very much affect the first sight of the centre of Empire from the Victoria Street entrance, it is very important that, to whomever the design is entrusted, there should be some realisation of the necessity to harmonise the style of this building with that of the surrounding buildings. I am mortally afraid that, by the misuse of the opportunity that is offered, we shall have another example of the drab, functional approach which has disfigured so many London highways in recent years, and that we may have an admirable design, perhaps, internally, for the purpose for which the building is designed, but entirely at variance with the London we know and the London we desire.
I do not want to see an architect, even with great ideas, perhaps, given a completely free choice in his treatment of this great opportunity. Already mention

has been made of various authorities with whom he should collaborate in preparing the design. Knowing the Ministry of Works, I am very anxious to know it they have already in mind the architect to whom they intend to entrust this great work. I would personally prefer to see a great open competition, under, perhaps, the auspices of the Royal Institute of British Architects, or of the Art Council, and an exhibition of the designs submitted, and of models, in some central place, preferably on the very site on which the building is to be erected, so that people could come to the exhibition and see the neighbourhood, enabling them to judge of the suitability of the designs which they would inspect.
I prefer to hasten slowly in this matter of the choice of architect and of the artists who will embellish his work, and I hope the art of the engraver will not be neglected when these artists are considered. I urge the Minister, even if he has taken certain tentative steps, to consider the vastness of this project and its importance to every man and woman, not only in London, but in the Empire, and to see whether it is possible to have a competition worthy of the design which we hope to see accepted.
There are many architects practising in Britain who have given us examples of their work in recent years, but in hardly any instance have they avoided controversy. This site is unique; it is probably the best site remaining for a great national building, and it would indeed be a pity if we did not get a great consensus of opinion in favour of the design before ever the foundation stone is laid. We do not want a bitter controversy to rage about the building which is to arise on the hospital site. If the choice of an architect has been made, and it is considered irrevocable, I urge that representatives of the Art Commission or the R.I.B.A. should be appointed as consultants to the architect, and the closest contact made with the authorities of the City of Westminster and the London County Council, so that when the Colonial Office is more worthily housed than it has been for many years past, it will be housed in a building not only adequate and suitable for its purpose, but in a building which will be a pride to everyone who approaches it and an inspiration to the Empire as a whole.

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: The first question I should like to ask the Government is—Where is the Colonial Secretary? Why is he not here this afternoon? We are providing him with a new office, and spending a lot of money on it, and I should have thought it was only elementary courtesy to the House that he should have been in his place for this Debate, especially as I doubt whether the Minister of Works can answer one of the questions I wish to put to the Government. It is a question which I think only the Colonial Secretary can answer. As for a new Colonial Office, I certainly would agree with that because nothing could be more depressing than the present Colonial Office with its dreary passages and its uninspiring entrance.

Mr. James Callaghan: And its smells.

Mr. Gammons: The first question I want to raise is this. Is this site suitable for a Government office at all? As other hon. Members have said, this is a unique site in London, opposite the greatest shrine in our history—Westminster Abbey. Although I would agree that we do not want shops there, I have not so much respect for a Government office, either from without or within, as to suggest that it should go on that unique site. After all, most Government offices have a rather forbidding appearance from outside, and when one goes inside one finds that curious smell of ink, sealing wax and mice which seems to pervade every Government activity. On the point about noise which has been referred to by my hon. Friend, surely ii is one of the noisiest parts of London? It is where buses seem to rev. up, and they make more noise going round that corner than in any other part of Westminster
On the second point I want to mention, I was hoping that the Minister would tell us a little more about the type of building he hopes to put up. I certainly do not envy the architect who has to design it. He has the Abbey on his left and in front of him a row of Victorian horrors which advertise various aspects of the Church; on the right of him he has the Central Hall of Westminster, which I do not regard as one of the most beautiful buildings in London; again on his left, he has the staid Middlesex Guildhall, and away on the right, Victoria Street—surely

one of the most forbidding and dreary streets in the whole of London.
What I should have liked would have been to see this site kept free altogether as an open space. However, if that cannot be arranged, I certainly agree with other hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying, "For heaven's sake let us see that we get a really good architect. Let us see that this is put out to competition and not handed over to some architect in the Ministry of Works." I think the Government ought to agree this afternoon that the design for this building should be put out for competition and that we should have an opportunity to see the plans and form some idea of what the finished building will look like. What is to happen to the present Colonial Office? Is it to be knocked down, or is some other unfortunate Department to go into it? What is to happen to the India Office? I suppose that it will not be required for very much longer, and as we are moving from one building to another I. do hope that the Minister will tell us something about that.
The chief point I want to make is this. I was rather hoping that when the right hon. Gentleman asked for money to purchase this site he would tell us that it was to be used for some entirely different purpose. I hoped that he would tell us that it was to be used not for a Colonial Office but for a great Colonial House. I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies last year on this subject in which I asked whether or not this Government favoured the erection of a Colonial House in London, and the answer I received was that they did. When I read this Bill I hoped that that was the purpose for which it would be used. This is one of my King Charles's heads, and I must ask the House to be indulgent with me on this point. I do think it has betrayed a lack of any kind of imagination on the part of successive Governments that we have never shown our pride in the Colonial Empire by having a great Colonial House here in the centre of London worthy of that Empire.
In all parts of London we have the agents of the Colonial Governments tucked away in back streets. I doubt if half the Members of this House know where those offices are. What a chance there would have been to set up on this unique site


a great Colonial House which every one of our fellow subjects in the Colonies overseas would have regarded instinctively as his home in London, and the centre to which he could have come. We could have had there a club house, with residential accommodation. I would like to have seen there a cinema so that our own citizens—school children and others—could go to see what is happening in the Colonial Empire; there would also have been a library and so forth. It would have been a wonderful conception, if we could have had the imagination to do it.
Each one of the Dominions has set up a worthy building in the centre of London. In the Colonial Empire we have 60 million people—more people than there are in the Dominions put together—and yet there is no building in London which shows our pride in the Colonial Empire. There would have been a chance for such a building on this site, and I suggest that the building itself might appropriately have been a gift of His Majesty's Government as a token of our appreciation of the loyalty of the Colonies in the late war, and that we should have called upon the Colonies themselves to provide the interior decorations from all the wood and other things which they produce in different parts of the world. I do not know whether it is too late to put that idea into the minds of the Government. I do not dissent from the suggestion that we need a Colonial Office; there are many other parts of London where we could have a suitable Colonial Office, but I do not know of any more suitable part of London than this site where we could have had a great Colonial House. I would like to feel that we should make this gesture which embodies our pride in our common citizenship, our gratitude for loyalty and sacrifice, and our faith in the permanence of this great Commonwealth of peoples.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: I do not intend to say anything about the general user of this building but, following the remarks of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), I think we ought to bear in mind that, in all probability, what is known as our Colonial Empire is not a permanent institution. It is the belief of the people in this country that ultimately these parts of the globe shall become self-governing and self-controlling countries.

Mr. Gammans: The mere fact that they do become self-governing, surely, should not lessen their pride in the British Commonwealth of Nations, any more than it has in the case of the Dominions.

Mr. Braddock: I do not want to continue on this point too long, but if it is a memorial that is wanted to our late Colonial Empire, I suggest there are better ways of having a memorial than this.
I wish to say a few words about the building and its site. I am sure we all welcome the fact that the Government are taking this site, and that it will not be used merely for a commercial building. What I am worried about is the use which is to be made of the site itself; because, unless the site is properly laid out, no matter what care we may take with regard to the selection of the architect, and no matter how much we may embellish that building with sculpture, paintings and, as one hon. Member suggested, engravings, we shall not have a satisfactory building. I do not know what restrictions the Government intend to place on their architect, but I do ask that no building should be erected with the same frontages as Westminster Hospital. If that building is to be stuck out in its present position, in front of the Central Hall, it will be impossible to get a satisfactory result. I understand that Government Departments are not obliged to consult the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. But basically this must be approached first of all from a planning point of view, and I ask that the frontages of the Westminster Abbey site be set well back, so as to enable other buildings to be better appreciated.
In doing that, we will give the architect a better opportunity of producing a decent result, because, quite frankly, I do not see how an architect can reconcile Central Hall, Westminster County Hall, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey. Goodness knows how he is to deal with that particular problem. I do not say it is impossible, but it is exceedingly difficult. I would remind the House that the existence of Westminster Hospital on its present site has had serious repercussions on buildings already erected. The Central Hall was never able to be completed in accordance with its original design, because the Westminster Hospital authorities raised objections; the turrets that were supposed to have been included


as a contrast to the general design of the building were never erected. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give particular care to the lay-out of the site, and to give instructions to the architect that he is to have freedom to give full consideration to the surrounding buildings.
I should like to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have asked that an open competition, open to all British architects at any rate, should be held in this matter. In saying this, I think it meets the wishes of my colleagues who have spoken in favour of bringing the other arts into collaboration. If we do that we can be certain of getting the work of one of our most brilliant architects. I emphasise that by using this method we shall, in all probability, get the advantage of the ability of one of our young architects. Almost invariably open competitions in this country have resulted in bringing young architects to the fore. The design of one of the finest buildings in this country, St. George's Hall, Liverpool, was the result of an open competition, and giving a young architect an opportunity. The same applies with regard to County Hall, and with regard to the new set of offices to be erected in Whitehall. I agree, the architect who won that latter competition was not a young man; but he obtained his place and experience as an architect as a result of an open competition. In view of the fact that we have just come through a war, it is all the more essential that we should use this method, in order to give young architects, young sculptors and young painters of this country a chance. If there is one thing in which our younger men differ from the older men, it is in this respect, that they appreciate—as was remarked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross)—the necessity of co-operation with each other. We can be certain that if we get a young man, we shall get a man who understands the need for co-operation with the other arts in this particular matter.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I do not possess the technical knowledge of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), and I will therefore not be indiscreet enough to trespass on that ground. I was very much impressed by the imaginative sug-

gestion of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) in regard to something in the nature of a Colonial House. I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us whether a building occupying a site covering both that of the Westminster Hospital and that of the Stationery Office would be adequate to fulfil the double purpose of a Colonial Office and a Colonial House. It will be observed that the proposals before us today are twofold, and in that sense provide the Minister with a double opportunity. He proposes to take powers first of all to abolish the existing Westminster Hospital, and secondly to erect some other building on the same site. In regard to the first he can be assured of not only cordial but enthusiastic support. The right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the injunction:
Walk about Zion, go round about her, tell her towers, mark well her bulwarks.
I myself applied that procedure one afternoon this week to the Westminster Hospital, dispensing myself for a quarter of an hour from the service of this House. I have not previously concentrated my mind on this edifice. Having done so, I am quite convinced that among all the hideous buildings in this great metropolis it can claim not merely an unchallenged, but an unchallengeable, place. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take powers to demolish Westminster Hospital, I can only hope that he will begin tomorrow morning, if the workers at his disposal are in the habit of doing that kind of thing on a Saturday.
With regard to the kind of building which is to be erected, I agree most cordially with the hon. Members for Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) and Mitcham that what is in question is not merely the erection on this incomparable site of a building impressive in itself, but of a building which goes as far as is posssible—and it is only possible to go a certain distance—towards harmonising with the very variagated companionship in which it will find itself. I cannot better the adjectives which have been applied to the Methodist Central Hall or the Middle-sex Guildhall, but it is perfectly obvious that the task of designing for erection there a building both impressive and harmonious will tax the capacities of our very best architects. I therefore desire, and it is the last point on which I shall


detain the House, to reinforce most strongly the plea that has been put forward from so many quarters that the design for this building should be thrown open to general competition. I would only appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he could not give us an assurance on that point at this moment, so as to cut short further debate, and give the public the satisfaction and assurance which I am quite certain they most urgently desire.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Berry: I join with hon. Members in urging that this shall be put to open competition, but I would like to cheer up my right hon. Friend by saying that even if it is put up to open competition and a successful architect is chosen, there will not be unanimity concerning the building until after the architect is dead—by which time I understand my right hon. Friend will have been promoted to another and higher place. I think my right hon. Friend has quite settled the doubts I had ready for him by the assurance he gave earlier that he would, in fact, consult the planning authority with regard to the general planning and the London County Council with regard to the points that would have arisen under the London Building Act. Also, while at the present time it is the practice to except Government Departments, as representing the Crown, from local Acts of Parliament, I would remind my right hon. Friend that that practice in another direction has been breached in another place, for a Bill is being considered to make the Crown and the Crown Agents suable by the ordinary citizen. I am hoping that in time to come Government Departments will place themselves under the same Acts of Parliament, which have been determined by this House, as ordinary citizens.
I have not very much to say further except that I hope the building will express certain parts of our Colonial Empire. I happened to be in Malta in November and December, 1938, and there a British architect had expressed some of the long ancestry of the Maltese and the Island of Malta, and just as attempts have been made in other places in London to express other countries associated with our Empire and Commonwealth, so an attempt ought to be made here. I do not share

the despair of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) that when the Colonies are given self-government they will detach themselves from our Commonwealth. On the contrary, I hope I may have every confidence that they will attach themselves more firmly, and that being so, the Colonial Office which it is proposed to erect shall be expressive of them and of the ideas associated with them. I welcome this Bill and I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck in regard to the taking of this site.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Key: By leave of the House I should like to reply to one or two of the points raised. I share with the House the great ambitions in regard to the buildings which are to be erected upon this site together with the other buildings which it will be necessary for us to erect in central London, and which we wish to be of the highest and finest character it is possible for us to secure. All I am asking for now is the power to acquire this site. I am not asking today for approval for any specific building to be erected there, but I shall give very careful consideration to the suggestions that have been made with regard to a competition for the architectural work on this site, and that consultations should take place not only with architects but with other artists in the hope that we will provide buildings worthy of the place.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance now that it will be done by competition?

Mr. Key: No; what I am saying is that I will give the fullest and most careful consideration to that in the hope that it is possible thereby to secure what we all want. I must say that experience in the past suggests that not always have the best results been achieved that way, but it does seem to me that on the evidence that has been given and the urge that has been expressed by the House, it might be the best thing to do to give an opportunity for competition in this connection. I have the greatest sympathy with the desire. I have already consulted with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, with the highway authorities and with the planning authorities. Let me say in this connection that in regard to the London plan this site and its precincts will be traffic free and the traffic will be diverted by a broadway in


Great George Street so that there will be no traffic around the House nor in the immediate vicinity of the Abbey. That should meet many of the desires which have been put forward.
I shall take every possible step to meet the desires of the House and I hope that I shall be given the power to acquire this site for the erection of these buildings. I am afraid it will be difficult for me to say that the site will be capable of meeting the two ambitions regarding the Colonial Office as well as a house for Colonial purposes, because accommodation will be required for the Colonial Office Library and things of that sort. I doubt very much whether the place would serve the other purpose as well but that is something which I will bear in mind when dealing with the matter and when it comes to the time for considering the type of building to be erected on the site. I hope now that I will get the Bill in order to acquire the site.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: When the Debate on this Bill is continued on another day, as it will have to be. I hope it will be arranged that the Colonial Secretary will be here to deal with the very important suggestion, which has been made in several parts of the House for a Colonial House. It seems to me that the argument used by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) against such a house is equally an argument against this Bill, because if there ceased to be Colonies there would be no need for a Colonial Office—

It being Four o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Church Stretton, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th March be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Hambledon

a copy of which Order was presented on 25th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Sheffield, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th March, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Halifax, a copy of which Order was presented on 25th March, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT AND PRESS (RELATIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Daines.]

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Boardman: If there is one piece of ground which is common to hon. Members in all parts of the House, it lies in the fact that, irrespective of party allegiance to any Government of the day, all hon. Members would agree that our British Parliamentary system, with all its imperfections, is the finest system of government in the world. That being so, we might go a step further and say that we all agree that any Government which may sit on these benches at any time is, at least, entitled to a fair crack of the whip from those people whose position allows them to mould or influence public opinion. I desire to speak very briefly on the relationship between the Government and the Press. I shall speak critically but also, I hope, constructively. During one of the Debates last week an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House told us that he did not believe one half of what he read in the newspapers. That statement is particularly noteworthy not because of its originality but because so many people are saying precisely the same thing. I quote from a letter which appeared in the "Daily Express" this morning:
I have been a regular reader of the 'Daily Express' for years and have now decided to change.
The letter praises the sports editor and the sports writers and says that they are the finest in the country. Then it adds:
Your political convictions override everything else and what was at one time, a


friendly, invigorating newspaper has become a hard machine, determined to turn its readers against the Government.
That is very interesting at a time when the technique of newspaper production has reached the very highest level. The popular Press today—and there are very honourable exceptions—is becoming progressively unreliable. This is an extremely bad thing, not particularly from the point of view of the people who might be injured by the unfairness, distortion, understatement or overstatement of the Press, but it is an extremely bad thing for the newspaper world itself. Whether the Press knows it or not, it is in the process of destroying its own dignity and influence with the men and women of this country. Probably all that arises from the fact that the daily Press of today is becoming much more interested in the presentation of views than in the presentation of news. I want to make myself perfectly clear on this particular issue. I regard a free Press as an integral part of a healthy democracy and I also regard the right to criticise as the hall-mark of freedom, but surely it is a strange twist of irony that while this freedom is one of the strongest features of our democratic system, it is becoming one of the greatest weaknesses of our democratic Government. I also want to stress this point. There are people, particularly hon. Members on this side of the House, who say that the Press have abused that freedom. Be that as it may, I want to make perfectly clear that I would rather see that freedom abused than see it abolished.
In such cases as the daily Press does attempt to give the Government's point of view it does so, I think naturally and probably unconsciously, with its own particular slant, but I try to take a reasoned view of this question. I realise that most men find it extremely difficult to see things except through their own eyes, and I think I have lived long enough to know that most men think their own particular opinion the most important thing in the world. Personally, I prefer facts to the predigested opinions of the Press proprietors, whoever they may be. I have this in common with hundreds of thousands—probably the majority—of men and women in this country, that as long as I can ascertain for myself what are the facts and what is the truth of the situation, I would rather be left to my own devices to form my own judg-

ment and my own opinion in any particular matter, particularly on political matters. While I believe that it is right and good and a healthy sign that people should be critical, and particularly critical of the Government, people cannot criticise effectively without first getting hold of the facts.
I, therefore, think that is the prime function of the Press. A lot has been said about the Press during the last few months and a lot will be said in the next few months. I do not want particularly to associate myself with that subject. During the last election, we on this side said a lot about "facing the future." I do not want to enter into any form of recrimination and I only propose to look backward, in so far as it may provide guidance for going forward. But I believe that during the short period this Government have been in office they have done magnificently. I believe their greatest weakness has been a complete inability to find an effective means of getting information across to the people. The problem is quite understandable. The position in which this Government find themselves is that the announcement of their political achievements is in the hands of their political adversaries. That is not a very healthy state of affairs, but we come to a point now where it is absolutely necessary, not merely in the interests of this Government or in the interests of any political party, but in the interests of the nation as a whole that we should get across to the people of this country particulars of the contents of their "Economic Survey for 1947."
We must impress on the people the grimness of the task that lies ahead. I am satisfied once we get that across, we can depend entirely on the loyal co-operation of every man and woman in this country. We can find consolation in the glorious precedents in our national history when grimness has brought forth greatness, and we may take it that on this occasion we can rely on the people in the task that lies ahead. When all is said and done, we are dependent for our economic rehabilitation on the unquestioned loyalty of the people, and the Government owe it to the people of this country—the men and women of any party or of no party—to tell them precisely what we are doing, and why we are doing it, and where we are going, and why we are going there. If I


may say this in criticism of the Government, I do not think it is good enough when people have empty grates, merely to tell them why we have no coal. I think we should be able to assess trends and inform people what we see six months or 12 months ahead, and what we have to do to meet a particular situation.
I am not asking the Government to indulge in any form of propaganda. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that all political propaganda should properly be left to the political parties. But I am asking that the Government should find some means of informing the nation as a whole of their policy and intention, and I suggest that this might be done as part of our daily news service. It may be also that people will say that at some time or another the Government are bound to indulge in some form of propaganda, for instance on a Bill like the National Insurance Bill where the vast majority of the community will benefit. All I can say in reply is, that if the standard of achievement of the Government is so high that it seems to be propaganda, so be it. We cannot help it. But if we are to carry the people with us through good times and bad—perhaps I should say through bad times and good—I think we must keep the people particularly well informed.
I want to make a proposal here which hope may be considered by the Government and may also be noted by the Press. I think the Government probably place too much reliance on White Papers like the "Economic Survey" and I think what the Government have so far failed to realise is that men and women would very much rather read the "News of the World" than a Government blue book.

Mr. Walkden: There is good stuff in the "News of the World."

Mr. Boardman: That may be, I am not disputing that. All I am saying is that we have to find a means of popular presentation of our case to the people. I think we can do that. During the war quite a number of admirable little pamphlets on the fighting Services were produced by the Stationery Office. In fact, they became best sellers. I want to put this proposal to the Government: that they should consider employing the best that we can get hold of in British

journalism. Instead of giving the newspapers the ordinary formal hand-out, which the Press do not want in many cases, they should say to these journalists, "This is news. Now you go and make this as bright and as readable as possible, as bright as you know how, with this overriding qualification—that you must stick essentially to facts and that, in the last analysis, a Minister in this Chamber can be responsible for every word that has been written." Some hon. Members may think I am particularly naive or overoptimistic on this line, but I think that instead of the Press and the Government partly kicking one another to death, we must approach this in. a commonsense way. I think there is a commonsense solution. I would invite the Press to print what has been written by these sponsored journalists. I want to underline that. I would invite that, but if they chose not to print it, then that is their circus.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman asking them to print news or views? I do not quite understand now what he wants to be printed.

Mr. Boardman: I thought I had made that perfectly clear, that instead of the ordinary formal hand-out of Government news, those journalists should be asked to make that news as presentable as possible.

Mr. Harris: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that any newspaper, in its own interests, makes news as presentable as possible? How can it be done differently?

Mr. Boardman: Precisely, that is just it—in its own interests. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain—

Mr. Harris: I have been waiting a long time.

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman has waited precisely 14 minutes, and in the fifteenth I will give him what he is waiting for. I would say to them, "Alongside this Government news you can print your own leader, you can print your own version, and so far as the Government contribution is concerned, you can criticise it, you can pull it to pieces, you can do what you like with it, but that is news." Then, having done that, I think we could leave it to the intelligence of the average reader to decide which way he himself should go at any


time—whether he should support the Government that might be in power, or use his influence to go against it on any particular issue. I think this would be not merely for the benefit of the Government. Above everything else, it would be for the benefit of the people as a whole. Secondly, it would be to the advantage of the Press, and finally to the advantage of the Government. I think it would be to the advantage of democracy itself in helping to make it a real, virile, living thing.
A few weeks ago political weeklies were suspended, and during those weeks the editors were invited to go on the air. I believe the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) took part in those debates. Outside the "Itma" programme, I think those broadcasts were more praised than anything I have heard on the radio in recent times. That was simply because we had people putting their own point of view, sometimes conflicting and sometimes agreeing, but, nevertheless, putting their own opinion clearly and straight from the shoulder, and that was very much appreciated. I think that would be the effect of what I am asking the Government and the Press to consider.
There is a line on which the Government and the Press seem to have some measure of co-operation. Both are appealing to both sides in industry, to management and men, to co-operate in the interests of our national and economic advancement. If the Government and the Press can demonstrate their co-operation—in fact practise what they are preaching to both sides of industry—that would be a gesture on the part of the Press which would help the Press to re-establish its dignity and influence. It would help to get our democratic people properly informed. It is no use paying lip service to democracy, unless we are prepared to take some steps to get democratic people properly informed. It would help the Government, because the people would have some proper appreciation of what the Government are doing, and if it was necessary to go through a tough time, they would carry the people with them, which would be definitely to the advantage of all parties concerned.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I undertake not to stand for

more than three minutes between the House and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), I have listened with a genuine endeavour to understand what he wanted, but I must confess I have not been entirely successful. He was kind enough to refer to a broadcast in which I participated. Actually those who took part in it were asked to make over the air just the same statements as we would have made in our papers, if our papers had been published that week. So far from there being any distinction between the broadcasts and the habits of the weekly papers, the two presentations were in fact identical.
After a fairly long experience, I am perfectly convinced that there is only one safe rule in relations between Government and Press. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that the Government must give the Press all the news it has at its disposal, and that it can disclose consistently with the public interest, but it must give plain, unvarnished news. In the early part of his speech, the hon. Member said he wanted to get the facts, and to form his view irrespective of what the leader-writer said. I do not think that would be achieved by his method of getting someone to take the facts, dress them as attractively as possible, and hand them out in that form to the individual daily papers. The papers must have the naked facts, and treat them as facts. Generally speaking, with regard to relations between Government and Press, the Government should interfere with the Press as little as possible, and the Press on their side should, if they think it well, not indeed interfere with the Government, but be perfectly free to criticise and comment on it as much as they choose. That is what is in fact happening today. Mistakes are no doubt made, papers are fallible, but I claim that the position is, in the main, satisfactory. I cannot, in spite of the most sincere endeavour, realise how anything the hon. Member has suggested today would improve the present situation. However, as I hope to hear some development of this idea from the Financial Secretary, and because I think we ought to have the full benefit of his observations, I will not detain the House longer.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I, too, followed with great interest the


speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), and I also had great difficulty in understanding the precise scope of his recommendations. I believe it is true that never before have any Government had at their disposal such elaborate machinery for communicating news and, possibly, their point of view to the Press.

Mr. Boardman: And probably no Government before have ever had such an elaborate machine which was so completely ineffective.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot go into that, and in any case, I am not competent to do so. No doubt the Financial Secretary will address himself to that point. The hon. Member for Leigh has criticised what is being put in the newspapers. I think it is obvious that with the present shortage of space and, if you like, the embarras de richesse in respect of news, there must be some compression and selectivity of news. I think it is true, however, that most papers try to represent the important facts as facts, and to keep comment reasonably distinct from facts. It may be right that certain White Papers, like the Economic Survey for 1947, are written in insufficiently intelligible or attractive language but that, of course, is not the fault of the Press. It is the fault of those who write these documents. It may be that in this respect the hon. Member was making a good point but was making it, as it were, against the wrong target. I will not say any more now, as the House will wish to hear the Financial Secretary.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I believe that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) had the best intentions in raising this subject today, but I felt that the further his speech proceeded the more it tended to become dangerous, for this reason. During the war the Government were identified with the people, to the extent of almost 100 per cent. The British documentary films that were produced, and the brochures from the Service Departments and other places, were representative of the nation. But now we have returned to party Government. The whole set-up is basically different. However, I hope that this Debate may lead one day to a Debate on the present functions of the Central Office of Information.
I think some of us would like to know precisely where that Office draws the line between matter which is non-controversial, and matter which may be very controversial, whichever Government is in power. I hope that we shall have a longer Debate in future on this subject.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Walkden: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) was quite sincere in trying to promote a Debate on something about which he felt critical, particularly with regard to public relations officers, hand-outs, and information which comes from Government Departments. But it was as though my hon. Friend went into battle armed with a bladder on a stick, instead of with the proper ammunition. There is something pathetic about Government Departments in their publishing of information. After all, the Press are entitled to express opinions, views, and criticisms. The strength of the Government of the day determines whether or not they can stand up to the newspapers. But the question to which criticism should be directed, is that of whether material which concerns a particular Department is or is not being properly presented to the newspapers. I would only say this to my hon. Friend. He has recently been appointed a P.P.S. I do not know much about the public relations department of his own Department. But I have been a P.P.S. myself. I say, frankly, that there is need for a shake up; there is need for a sorting out; there is need for a comb out; there is need for an elimination process. It that is what my hon. Friend wishes to commend to the Financial Secretary, I second his speech, and I shall encourage him for all I am worth, in any effort he may make to have another Debate on this question in the very near future.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I shall be very brief because I know the House wants to hear the Financial Secretary. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) his inability to understand exactly what the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) wanted to say. He started by suggesting that there should be closer relations between the Government and the Press, and went on to say that the Government were not


getting a fair deal. That, really, is quite without foundation. The truth of the matter is, that this is like selling any other commodity. If one has a good article to sell, one can sell it all right; and what the hon. Member is really doing, by saying the Government are not getting good publicity, is denying his assertion that it is a very good Government. For good publicity in the newspapers is a general reflection of public opinion, and if public opinion really believed this was a good Government, there would not be any difficulty in getting adequate support from the newspapers. That is what the trouble is.

Mr. Boardman: No.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman's complaint should not be towards the newspapers; it should be towards the Government. I know that the House wants to hear the Financial Secretary, but I will go on for a moment longer because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to say very much. On this subject one has to be very careful about getting near to any sort of control of the Press. I did not know this Debate was going to arise today, but I happened a few days ago to be looking through a book of lampoons of the eighteenth century, and I found this which struck me as rather amusing. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be offended by one particular line in it:
When wicked Ministers of State,
To fleece the lamb combined,
As guardians of our liberties,
The Press was first designed.
But now the scum is uppermost,
The truth must not be spoke,
The world is topsy-turvy turned,
And justice is a yoke.

4.27 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As I understand it I have five minutes, including a couple of minutes beyond the half hour. I believe I can cover the ground that we have to cover in that time. Unlike other hon. Members, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on his speech. I thought that he spoke with restraint, and with a good deal of common sense. He said it was the right of the Press to criticise, and that it was the hall-mark of democracy that that right should be there, and that he would rather see the liberty of the Press abused than taken away. I

think these things should be said, and I am sure that hon. Members present will agree with him. He also said—and this cannot be underlined or emphasised too much—that propaganda is not part of the work of the Government. That is, in fact, our sheet anchor in this matter.
The Government's job is not, in my view—and, I am positive, in the view of other hon. Members here—to use the machine at their disposal to put over their own purely party point of view. They should use what facilities they have in order to get to the public the facts of any given situation, so that the public can be fully informed. I think it was rather to that end that my hon. Friend desired to raise this Debate, and to get some expression of the Government's point of view. He said the Government should not only get over what they were doing, but also get over to the public the reasons why they were doing it.
I share with hon. Members opposite the feeling that we are hardly likely to get too much co-operation from the Press along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. It would, of course, be necessary to get journalists together, and try to get them to co-operate in the way he visualised. But I should like to tell him—I think he knows it already—that, generally, the Press does exist to put over the point of view of some political party, and to support a political party—except, of course, periodicals of the calibre of that edited by the hon. Gentleman thug junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris).

Mr. Wilson Harris: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the papers are, in fact, often called together by Ministers, and do readily co-operate for particular purposes?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, indeed; but I cannot, unfortunately, go into that. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), who said that the Government now, more than ever, are able to command an elaborate publicity machine. That is not true. I suppose there was never a time when a Government had less of the public Press behind them than the present Government.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The machine referred to was that of the public relations officers, and all that.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Even so, I do not think it is quite true. During the war we had the Ministry of Information. I know the times were peculiar and that the need was particular. But I do not think it is true that this Government have behind them a more elaborate machine than any previous Government had. I do emphasise that we in this Government do not intend to use the machine to put over our own peculiar party point of view. But the presentation of full facts not only informs but heartens the public. I hope that, in spite of the things

that have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walk-den), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh in portions of his speech, I may fairly claim—if there were time I could elaborate this—that the Government are fully alive to this need, and are doing their best to meet it, even during the present difficult times.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes to Five o'Clock.